MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Off Topic => Topic started by: Microstockphoto on October 01, 2015, 13:52
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/01/us/oregon-college-shooting/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/01/us/oregon-college-shooting/index.html)
it never ends, does it, until they give up that right to keep and bear arms
-
238 days, 247 mass shootings in America - still think they're 'isolated' incidents?
http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2015/08/isolated_incident_theres_a_mas.html (http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2015/08/isolated_incident_theres_a_mas.html)
-
[url]http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/01/us/oregon-college-shooting/index.html[/url] ([url]http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/01/us/oregon-college-shooting/index.html[/url])
it never ends, does it, until they give up that right to keep and bear arms
They will get them anyway. There are about a thousand ways to get firearms without going to a gunshop or register.
-
[url]http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/01/us/oregon-college-shooting/index.html[/url] ([url]http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/01/us/oregon-college-shooting/index.html[/url])
it never ends, does it, until they give up that right to keep and bear arms
They will get them anyway. There are about a thousand ways to get firearms without going to a gunshop or register.
criminals always have and always will, agree, average joe wont, and its them who go into schools, not hardened criminals
-
I can understand the argument that people should have the freedom to bear arms for whatever principled reason but the idea that it wouldn't prevent shootings to ban people having guns is absolutely rediculous. There is so much evidence from all over the world that more stringent gun laws equals massively less shooting deaths. There's even a nice parallel in austrailia where they had liberal (small l) gun laws and tightened them up after shootings with the result of massively less gun deaths. Sadly it has become a tribal political issue in the US and can never be anything else with the massive arms industry involved.
-
[url]http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/01/us/oregon-college-shooting/index.html[/url] ([url]http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/01/us/oregon-college-shooting/index.html[/url])
it never ends, does it, until they give up that right to keep and bear arms
They will get them anyway. There are about a thousand ways to get firearms without going to a gunshop or register.
criminals always have and always will, agree, average joe wont, and its them who go into schools, not hardened criminals
Actually, studies show that most criminals get guns by buying them from people they know. If those people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to get them. And more than 500,000 guns are stolen from private owners in the U.S. every year. Same story—if those people didn't have guns, there'd be fewer to steal.
-
I can understand the argument that people should have the freedom to bear arms for whatever principled reason but the idea that it wouldn't prevent shootings to ban people having guns is absolutely rediculous. There is so much evidence from all over the world that more stringent gun laws equals massively less shooting deaths. There's even a nice parallel in austrailia where they had liberal (small l) gun laws and tightened them up after shootings with the result of massively less gun deaths. Sadly it has become a tribal political issue in the US and can never be anything else with the massive arms industry involved.
The minute you ban something you create a black market and just imagine the giant size of a black market in the US. Look at countries where you even need a license for air-guns, type Scandinavia, look what happened in Norway.
-
? What is your point. There's a black market for guns already. There would be less guns floating about to find their way onto the black market. I frankly don't care one way or another what laws are in place in the US. It just seems odd to me that there is any argument about the fact that more stringent gun laws would equal less deaths. Every bit of evidence is to the contrary. You would think that the argument would bump into reality at some point. The pro gun lobby even manages to prevent collation of statistics on gun crime and gun ownership. If you just really like owning guns why not just say "sorry, I like guns they are f*****g awsome" or even "I see it as a fundamental right that outweighs the negatives" and leave it at that. Everything else seems either silly or disingenuous.
-
No but your point amalgamates to the same old philosophy " ban all firearms" that argument have been beaten to death and it will never happen, simple as that.
Its no point getting uptight about, not worth it. Just when the anti-gun squad comes along with the same old argument nobody takes any notice anymore.
Instead they should get all the lunatics off the streets. I mean this is not just somebody waking up one morning and decide to shoot people.
-
No but your point amalgamates to the same old philosophy " ban all firearms" that argument have been beaten to death and it will never happen, simple as that.
Don't be so defeatist.
One day, enough Americans might come to their senses.
-
There is no "instead". No one is going to argue that lunatics should be left on the streets. But you won't get them all and less of them will be shooting your kids if you tightened up gun laws. But then again as I said maybe you just really like the feeling of owning a gun or think it is your right, so go ahead. Meh. I am not up tight about that, it's up to the American public and as I say I don't really mind either way. I only get annoyed when I see poor arguments that have no basis in reality. It could be about anything really.
-
No but your point amalgamates to the same old philosophy " ban all firearms" that argument have been beaten to death and it will never happen, simple as that.
Don't be so defeatist.
One day, enough Americans might come to their senses.
I'm not too sure about that ;D and even if they did there will always be nutters.
-
Once the average citizen isn't allowed to have guns, criminals take over and crime skyrockets.
Just ask Latin America.
Then look at Switzerland - the problem is not the gun, the problem is the culture (or lack of it).
-
No but your point amalgamates to the same old philosophy " ban all firearms" that argument have been beaten to death and it will never happen, simple as that.
Don't be so defeatist.
One day, enough Americans might come to their senses.
I'm not too sure about that ;D and even if they did there will always be nutters.
There will always be nutters and there will always be a degree of gun crime even in countries which have very tight laws. Just fewer, which is a Good Thing, IMO.
-
Once the average citizen isn't allowed to have guns, criminals take over and crime skyrockets.
Just ask Latin America.
Not necessarily. We have tight gun laws, particularly after Dunblane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_%28Amendment%29_Act_1997 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_%28Amendment%29_Act_1997)
We have crime, but it certainly didn't increase after we tightened the already fairly tight gun laws.
-
No wonder! As long as an ordinary US citizen can go to the shop and legally buy gun we will see gun shooting!
In Europe or in most of the countries you'll have to get permission from police and have to explain WHY for god sake you need weapon. At the end maybe you'll get permission for a limited time to have weapon.
-
Yes and in many European countries, when a burglar comes through the window waving a gun, you are supposed to use harsh language against his gun. God forbid if you should hit him over the head with something. He can then sue YOU for grevious bodily harm.
No matter how one twist and turn this question in the end nobody wins.
-
No one needs multiple weapons - semi-automatics, etc. It's insane IMHO - I hope my countrymen finally do the right thing, ban assault weapons and make it much more difficult to get any type of gun. It's one thing to want to hunt, it's another to have a personal arsenal. So heartbreaking all these kids dead or injured.
-
Yes and in many European countries, when a burglar comes through the window waving a gun, you are supposed to use harsh language against his gun. God forbid if you should hit him over the head with something. He can then sue YOU for grevious bodily harm.
No matter how one twist and turn this question in the end nobody wins.
This is what I'm talking about. I live in the uk. Gun laws here are tight. Burglars here don't have guns. Home owners don't have guns. In the US burglars and homeowners often do. You are far more likely to be shot by a burglar in the US with their gun or yours. You may be able to find a freak exception to this, just like you could find a freak instance of a mass shooting in Europe. There's a reason why these instances make global news. They are like zebras while American mass shootings are like horses. You are right that no one wins the overall argument. Some people like having guns some don't. Some people value the feeling of individual power enough to outweigh the extra actual deaths. That's up to you. But you can't just say random stuff like this without sounding odd to anyone not in the argument. You're just incorrect.
-
When it comes to guns, many of us in the US are complete nuts. Must have something to do with our fairly recent "Wild West Frontier" experience (relatively speaking, of course), compared to other places in the world that have been densely populated for far longer than the North American continent.
One thing's certain: for all our military might, we Americans, as individuals, are not safer than people who live in other developed countries. What happened today in bucolic Roseburg, Oregon could happen in any state or town in the USA, at any time, in any location, and to anybody. The violence is totally random and unpredictable. It's not uncommon for parents to kiss their kids or spouses goodbye in the morning only to find out later that was the last time they'd ever see them alive.
If some foreign terrorist were to come into our country and do to us what our own citizens do on a frightfully regular basis, the country (most especially the gun nuts) would be up in arms. GOTTA GO FIGHT TERRORISM!!! But when we do it to ourselves, the gun nuts just shrug.
The all-powerful gun-rights lobby that has sunk its hooks deep into many of our politicians argues that we need more guns, not fewer guns, and fewer laws/restrictions not more. If they had their way, every teacher and office worker and store clerk and grocery stockboy and pastor/priest/rabbi and television reporter and truck driver and model and crossing guard and elected official and college/highschool/kindergarten student would be "packin' heat" and practicing "concealed carry." That, they argue, would make us all safe. Right.
Why we put up with this is anybody's guess, but it certainly doesn't make sense to me.
Disgusting.
-
Yes and in many European countries, when a burglar comes through the window waving a gun, you are supposed to use harsh language against his gun. God forbid if you should hit him over the head with something. He can then sue YOU for grevious bodily harm.
No matter how one twist and turn this question in the end nobody wins.
This is what I'm talking about. I live in the uk. Gun laws here are tight. Burglars here don't have guns. Home owners don't have guns. In the US burglars and homeowners often do. You are far more likely to be shot by a burglar in the US with their gun or yours. You may be able to find a freak exception to this, just like you could find a freak instance of a mass shooting in Europe. There's a reason why these instances make global news. They are like zebras while American mass shootings are like horses. You are right that no one wins the overall argument. Some people like having guns some don't. Some people value the feeling of individual power enough to outweigh the extra actual deaths. That's up to you. But you can't just say random stuff like this without sounding odd to anyone not in the argument. You're just incorrect.
I live in London! burglars don't have guns??? home owners don't have guns??? who are you kidding or do you live in a quiet suburb to London. I got my studio down in Chelsea just around from Cadogan-square and let me tell you I personally know four people down here who are gun-owners.
About a week back, two burglars were trying to rob a transport form some jewellry store, Police got a tip or something and they found two sawn-off shotguns and two 357 Magnums with pure factory-loads.
Thats just a taste of the REAL London for you, the centre of London. This is not just an American thing but considering the US population is ten times bigger there are ten times more guns.
-
"This is not just an American thing but considering the US population is ten times bigger there are ten times more guns."
Factually incorrect of course......in 2007 according to the small arms survey there were 88 guns PER Hundred people in US vs 6.6 in the UK. So I reckon thats about 60-70 times as many guns.
You are of course entitled to your opinion but it would be more credible if there were some objective evidence to support it.
-
Yes and in many European countries, when a burglar comes through the window waving a gun, you are supposed to use harsh language against his gun. God forbid if you should hit him over the head with something. He can then sue YOU for grevious bodily harm.
No matter how one twist and turn this question in the end nobody wins.
This is what I'm talking about. I live in the uk. Gun laws here are tight. Burglars here don't have guns. Home owners don't have guns. In the US burglars and homeowners often do. You are far more likely to be shot by a burglar in the US with their gun or yours. You may be able to find a freak exception to this, just like you could find a freak instance of a mass shooting in Europe. There's a reason why these instances make global news. They are like zebras while American mass shootings are like horses. You are right that no one wins the overall argument. Some people like having guns some don't. Some people value the feeling of individual power enough to outweigh the extra actual deaths. That's up to you. But you can't just say random stuff like this without sounding odd to anyone not in the argument. You're just incorrect.
I live in London! burglars don't have guns??? home owners don't have guns??? who are you kidding or do you live in a quiet suburb to London. I got my studio down in Chelsea just around from Cadogan-square and let me tell you I personally know four people down here who are gun-owners.
About a week back, two burglars were trying to rob a transport form some jewellry store, Police got a tip or something and they found two sawn-off shotguns and two 357 Magnums with pure factory-loads.
Thats just a taste of the REAL London for you, the centre of London. This is not just an American thing but considering the US population is ten times bigger there are ten times more guns.
Lol, I was born and raised in one of the most dangerous parts of London with one the highest murder rates/ lowest employment/ lowest average income in the UK. The idea that the centre of London is the "real" London is absolutely hilarious. Cadogan-Square?! Where a flat will set you back in excess of 3 million? You crack me up. I was raised in a house where there were shot guns and shells literally lying around. I used to show them off to my friends when I was 5 years old. One of those friends was in prison for armed robbery a couple of months after he dropped out of school at 16. Another for supplying him with class A drugs while he was in there. My opinions aren't based on ignorance. I just don't let my anecdotal personal experiences outweigh the facts.
-
...... This is not just an American thing but considering the US population is ten times bigger there are ten times more guns.
Okay another example. I get that you don't know the facts and that is fine, you don't have to especially if you live in the UK so aren't involved in the debate. But why do you feel the need to comment if you don't know what you are talking about? I guess that's just the internet for you.
There are somewhere around 2 million guns in the UK and around 300 million in the US, that's many times the number per capita. Pretty much more than any other country in the world. You are about 40x more likely to be shot to death in the US than in the UK.
It's fine to not know that and admit it. It's not fine to just keep spouting nonsense for the sake of it. It doesn't reflect well on you and it wastes everyone's time.
-
Yes and in many European countries, when a burglar comes through the window waving a gun, you are supposed to use harsh language against his gun. God forbid if you should hit him over the head with something. He can then sue YOU for grevious bodily harm.
No matter how one twist and turn this question in the end nobody wins.
This is what I'm talking about. I live in the uk. Gun laws here are tight. Burglars here don't have guns. Home owners don't have guns. In the US burglars and homeowners often do. You are far more likely to be shot by a burglar in the US with their gun or yours. You may be able to find a freak exception to this, just like you could find a freak instance of a mass shooting in Europe. There's a reason why these instances make global news. They are like zebras while American mass shootings are like horses. You are right that no one wins the overall argument. Some people like having guns some don't. Some people value the feeling of individual power enough to outweigh the extra actual deaths. That's up to you. But you can't just say random stuff like this without sounding odd to anyone not in the argument. You're just incorrect.
I live in London! burglars don't have guns??? home owners don't have guns??? who are you kidding or do you live in a quiet suburb to London. I got my studio down in Chelsea just around from Cadogan-square and let me tell you I personally know four people down here who are gun-owners.
About a week back, two burglars were trying to rob a transport form some jewellry store, Police got a tip or something and they found two sawn-off shotguns and two 357 Magnums with pure factory-loads.
Thats just a taste of the REAL London for you, the centre of London. This is not just an American thing but considering the US population is ten times bigger there are ten times more guns.
Lol, I was born and raised in one of the most dangerous parts of London with one the highest murder rates/ lowest employment/ lowest average income in the UK. The idea that the centre of London is the "real" London is absolutely hilarious. Cadogan-Square?! Where a flat will set you back in excess of 3 million? You crack me up. I was raised in a house where there were shot guns and shells literally lying around. I used to show them off to my friends when I was 5 years old. One of those friends was in prison for armed robbery a couple of months after he dropped out of school at 16. Another for supplying him with class A drugs while he was in there. My opinions aren't based on ignorance. I just don't let my anecdotal personal experiences outweigh the facts.
Read my post properly. I said my studio is in Cadogan-square, I didn't say I lived there. Big difference. Well I suppose youre coming from something very dangerous then? funny but youre speaking of mutiple murders, drugs, prisons??
I thought you said earlier that London was so peaceful, nobody ever speaks about guns, knifes or anything. Oh well funny that.
Anyway the conversation is fruitless, people will still buy and own guns.
-
My two cents on that issue,
The numbers are enough self explaining:
All countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate)
Only developed countries:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/)
Why in the States dies this impressive amount of people by a firearm? Because there are many firearms, and it's too easy to get one and kill some one.
PD: I live in Spain, where it's almost imposible to find someone width a Gun (except police officers and security services or some criminal). Of course you can get killed by some hunter how owns a shotgun, but statistically it's very improbable.
Condolences to those families who are suffering right know.
-
...... This is not just an American thing but considering the US population is ten times bigger there are ten times more guns.
Okay another example. I get that you don't know the facts and that is fine, you don't have to especially if you live in the UK so aren't involved in the debate. But why do you feel the need to comment if you don't know what you are talking about? I guess that's just the internet for you.
There are somewhere around 2 million guns in the UK and around 300 million in the US, that's many times the number per capita. Pretty much more than any other country in the world. You are about 40x more likely to be shot to death in the US than in the UK.
It's fine to not know that and admit it. It's not fine to just keep spouting nonsense for the sake of it. It doesn't reflect well on you and it wastes everyone's time.
Amen to that. ;D ;D ;D
-
"Read my post properly." Oh the irony :'(
-
Given the deaths of all thoses babies at Sandy Hook changed absolutely nothing, we can expect to see this continue for decades if not centuries.
Whether you roll out all the statistics and the issues and the rights and the amendments to condone or condemn - the bodies all roll in the same direction. Sad.
-
Yes and in many European countries, when a burglar comes through the window waving a gun, you are supposed to use harsh language against his gun. God forbid if you should hit him over the head with something. He can then sue YOU for grevious bodily harm.
No matter how one twist and turn this question in the end nobody wins.
That's not true
-
No wonder! As long as an ordinary US citizen can go to the shop and legally buy gun we will see gun shooting!
In Europe or in most of the countries you'll have to get permission from police and have to explain WHY for god sake you need weapon. At the end maybe you'll get permission for a limited time to have weapon.
I can walk into a gun store and buy a gun any time I want to. No real limits on the number I can own.
However, up here (Canada) owning a gun is a privilege not a right. So we aren't quite as obsessed about them. I feel vastly safer here than I would anywhere in the US. We generally don't have people breaking into houses up here so sitting on your couch with a gun waiting to splash some crackhead coming through the window seems like a pretty poor use of time.
There is a culture in the states that facilitates these shootings. Any sort of restriction on gun use and ownership (note, I'm not even bringing up bans as the lobbiests would have you think is the only option being proposed) is seen as some sort of massive oppression by the government. But people still wear seatbelts and stop at red lights because they (the smart ones at least) know it makes them safer.
This will continue. It is apparently acceptable to the majority in the US. Sacrifice a few every few weeks/months just to make sure that the rights of some people are nice and shiny and polished.
Have fun with that.
-
It is apparently acceptable to the majority in the US. Sacrifice a few every few weeks/months just to make sure that the rights of some people are nice and shiny and polished.
Yep. You just nailed the problem squarely on its head. Makes no sense whatsoever, but the gun lobby has so successfully targeted pro-gun control politicians that they've turned the rest into pitiful blobs of jelly. It's sad, but as you say, it will continue.
-
Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.
-
Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.
Shelma is absolutely right, and I should not have agreed earlier that the majority of US citizens are okay with the situation. They're not. But I think they're shell-shocked (forgive the pun) at this point, because it seems nothing can be done about it, given our current political gridlock.
Sooner or later, reason will prevail. It just doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon.
-
Check out this link to an article in today's Washington Post that exposes the politics of the situation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/02/why-the-gun-debate-wont-change-after-the-oregon-shooting/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/02/why-the-gun-debate-wont-change-after-the-oregon-shooting/)
-
Firearms are a religion. Those that worship them cannot be convinced to change their beliefs no matter how detrimental that worship is to their wellbeing.
-
Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.
Then that vast majority of Americans should be using their democratic right to uphold their apparent values.
Make it happen.
Politicians wouldn't be scared of a lobby that represents a small minority if they knew for certain that a large majority support them.
I think that even if alot of people don't own guns they still bristle at the idea of a government limiting their perceived rights under an amendment to the constitution. So, in a way, they do support this stuff. Just slightly indirectly.
-
No but your point amalgamates to the same old philosophy " ban all firearms" that argument have been beaten to death and it will never happen, simple as that.
Its no point getting uptight about, not worth it. Just when the anti-gun squad comes along with the same old argument nobody takes any notice anymore.
Instead they should get all the lunatics off the streets. I mean this is not just somebody waking up one morning and decide to shoot people.
Get lunatics off the streets? Define lunatic. Is a depressed individual lunatic? Is an angry individual lunatic? This has never been an exact science.
And what's next?
Being crazy has always been the excuse used by dictators to "take off the streets", lock away and silence their oponents.
Owning guns is only a hobby, despite all the old arguments revolving around an obsolete constitutional ammendment.
Defending private property and human life are among the few duties to be delegated to a government.
If I have to trade off civil liberties in order to defend the unalienable right to human life, I would rather give away a hobby, instead of the freedom to "walk the streets" or the freedoms of the first ammendment. Owning guns is only a right, not an unalienable right, like human life.
The unalianable right to human life trumps the right to enjoy a hobby.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
-
Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.
Then that vast majority of Americans should be using their democratic right to uphold their apparent values.
Make it happen.
Politicians wouldn't be scared of a lobby that represents a small minority if they knew for certain that a large majority support them.
I think that even if alot of people don't own guns they still bristle at the idea of a government limiting their perceived rights under an amendment to the constitution. So, in a way, they do support this stuff. Just slightly indirectly.
No, I don't think people are bristling at putting more restrictions on gun ownership. Why not use the same restrictions as we put on cars? License, insurance, registration. Points and impounding for breaking laws, fines, mandatory inspections.
And when was the last time the folks in Congress actually represented the people who voted for them, rather than special interests, lobbies, and corporations? Plus, the NRA absolutely will spend millions pillorying anyone running for office who speaks out against them, quashing their chances at being elected.
-
Funny this conversation as it carries on. Here is a nutter shooting people and the main issue seems to be his gun?? right now in Europe there are tens of thousands of refugees, innocent women and children and around, 70 people a day are dying and that without any guns, knifes, crossbows, canons, bombs. They are just dying because countries don't wish to help, politics, political murder without a gun.------------------------------------------not a single word about that....some contrast isn't it.
-
You could have started your own thread on that issue.
Funny this conversation as it carries on. Here is a nutter shooting people and the main issue seems to be his gun?? right now in Europe there are tens of thousands of refugees, innocent women and children and around, 70 people a day are dying and that without any guns, knifes, crossbows, canons, bombs. They are just dying because countries don't wish to help, politics, political murder without a gun.------------------------------------------not a single word about that....some contrast isn't it.
-
Funny this conversation as it carries on. Here is a nutter shooting people and the main issue seems to be his gun?? right now in Europe there are tens of thousands of refugees, innocent women and children and around, 70 people a day are dying and that without any guns, knifes, crossbows, canons, bombs. They are just dying because countries don't wish to help, politics, political murder without a gun.------------------------------------------not a single word about that....some contrast isn't it.
The refugee crisis is awful. But more than 80 people are killed per day in the U.S. every year, year after year, by guns. More than 30,000 people per year...more than a quarter million over the last decade. It's a daily crisis here and has been for a long time.
-
No, no point. I live in London but I still find it strange that as soon as something drastic happens in America everyone starts pointing the finger at them, as if we Europeans should know any better, which we certainly do NOT.
Now had this lunatic walked around with a giant Bowie-knife slashing people we wouldn't have heard two words about it. The gun is the issue here, not 10 corpses, not their families but the gun. Sad!
-
Funny this conversation as it carries on. Here is a nutter shooting people and the main issue seems to be his gun?? right now in Europe there are tens of thousands of refugees, innocent women and children and around, 70 people a day are dying and that without any guns, knifes, crossbows, canons, bombs. They are just dying because countries don't wish to help, politics, political murder without a gun.------------------------------------------not a single word about that....some contrast isn't it.
The refugee crisis is awful. But more than 80 people are killed per day in the U.S. every year, year after year, by guns. More than 30,000 people per year...more than a quarter million over the last decade. It's a daily crisis here and has been for a long time.
yeah but we are talking between 70-100 people PER/DAY here! children starving, decease, infections, viruses, stress. My brother is down there right now as a physician, he calls it murder by torture.
-
Now had this lunatic walked around with a giant Bowie-knife slashing people we wouldn't have heard two words about it. The gun is the issue here, not 10 corpses, not their families but the gun. Sad!
Do you really believe that? You seem to have very selective vision of what is reported on the news......and when was the last time someone managed to kill TEN people with a knife in a single incident.
-
Now had this lunatic walked around with a giant Bowie-knife slashing people we wouldn't have heard two words about it. The gun is the issue here, not 10 corpses, not their families but the gun. Sad!
Do you really believe that? You seem to have very selective vision of what is reported on the news......and when was the last time someone managed to kill TEN people with a knife in a single incident.
Oh boy! How old are you? just turned 18? I was sort of speaking metaphorically you see. Now use Google and find out what that means.... Sigh!
-
No, no point. I live in London but I still find it strange that as soon as something drastic happens in America everyone starts pointing the finger at them, as if we Europeans should know any better, which we certainly do NOT.
Now had this lunatic walked around with a giant Bowie-knife slashing people we wouldn't have heard two words about it. The gun is the issue here, not 10 corpses, not their families but the gun. Sad!
But you DO know better. There are far fewer gun deaths in every other developed country in the world than in the U.S. Far, far fewer. Because the rest of the developed world takes guns seriously and has much more strict regulations about them.
The gun is the issue because, as I said, more than 30,000 people die every year here from guns. If we enacted laws similar to Australia's, for example, we could probably cut that by 90%. That's tens of thousands of lives saved every year.
We're accepting 10,000 Syrian refugees, BTW.
-
Oh dear there is nothing metaphorical about what you said. It is totally irrelevant whether I am 18 or 80.
In the UK there is a huge amount of concern about knife crime but I guess you haven't noticed it in your bubble (metaphor)
-
Oh dear there is nothing metaphorical about what you said. It is totally irrelevant whether I am 18 or 80.
In the UK there is a huge amount of concern about knife crime but I guess you haven't noticed it in your bubble (metaphor)
yes, yes, now move on.
-
No, no point. I live in London but I still find it strange that as soon as something drastic happens in America everyone starts pointing the finger at them, as if we Europeans should know any better, which we certainly do NOT.
Now had this lunatic walked around with a giant Bowie-knife slashing people we wouldn't have heard two words about it. The gun is the issue here, not 10 corpses, not their families but the gun. Sad!
But you DO know better. There are far fewer gun deaths in every other developed country in the world than in the U.S. Far, far fewer. Because the rest of the developed world takes guns seriously and has much more strict regulations about them.
The gun is the issue because, as I said, more than 30,000 people die every year here from guns. If we enacted laws similar to Australia's, for example, we could probably cut that by 90%. That's tens of thousands of lives saved every year.
We're accepting 10,000 Syrian refugees, BTW.
yes you are quite correct.
-
Oh dear there is nothing metaphorical about what you said. It is totally irrelevant whether I am 18 or 80.
In the UK there is a huge amount of concern about knife crime but I guess you haven't noticed it in your bubble (metaphor)
yes, yes, now move on.
I guess you don't need to look up condescending on google.
-
Funny this conversation as it carries on. Here is a nutter shooting people and the main issue seems to be his gun?? right now in Europe there are tens of thousands of refugees, innocent women and children and around, 70 people a day are dying and that without any guns, knifes, crossbows, canons, bombs. They are just dying because countries don't wish to help, politics, political murder without a gun.------------------------------------------not a single word about that....some contrast isn't it.
The refugee crisis is awful. But more than 80 people are killed per day in the U.S. every year, year after year, by guns. More than 30,000 people per year...more than a quarter million over the last decade. It's a daily crisis here and has been for a long time.
Funny this conversation as it carries on. Here is a nutter shooting people and the main issue seems to be his gun?? right now in Europe there are tens of thousands of refugees, innocent women and children and around, 70 people a day are dying and that without any guns, knifes, crossbows, canons, bombs. They are just dying because countries don't wish to help, politics, political murder without a gun.------------------------------------------not a single word about that....some contrast isn't it.
The refugee crisis is awful. But more than 80 people are killed per day in the U.S. every year, year after year, by guns. More than 30,000 people per year...more than a quarter million over the last decade. It's a daily crisis here and has been for a long time.
yeah but we are talking between 70-100 people PER/DAY here! children starving, decease, infections, viruses, stress. My brother is down there right now as a physician, he calls it murder by torture.
All this and we are still talking about the vehicle of death instead of the political, social & health issues which contribute to both situations. I think collectively we are in the process of waking up. If we want things to change for the better - instead of pointing fingers the world needs to ask themselves some difficult questions; define the root issues which contribute to our increasing social issues and then allocate adequate resources needed to solve those problems and heal our communities.
In the mean time those who would use a gun to harm others can access them easily and they have the means to kill more people in a set period of time than they do by most other means.
One life lost because of our apathy is too many! We are all culpable because of our passivity; one life lost by gun, knife, bowling ball, tire iron, fire place poker, a mans fist or in the horrors born in the expansive refugee crisis is too many!
-
Unfortunately, stories like this just keep happening.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tennessee-boy-11-charged-killing-girl-after-argument-over-puppy-n439061 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tennessee-boy-11-charged-killing-girl-after-argument-over-puppy-n439061)
-
Unfortunately, stories like this just keep happening.
[url]http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tennessee-boy-11-charged-killing-girl-after-argument-over-puppy-n439061[/url] ([url]http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tennessee-boy-11-charged-killing-girl-after-argument-over-puppy-n439061[/url])
There are so many mass shootings in the U.S. most are ignored, like this one, which happened on the same day as the Oregon shooting. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34428946?ocid=socialflow_facebook (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34428946?ocid=socialflow_facebook)
-
Think its partly numbers and partly cos the more random shootings seem more scary - sad really. In the UK there does seem something of a "trend" for people to wipe out their close family.
-
Perhaps the only way to defeat the gun lobby is to let them have their way in a few of the more conservative states? Tourists and more sensible US citizens could stay away until they realise that arming almost everyone is just going to make it even worse. It baffles me why people would want to give guns to more lunatics but the only way to defeat the argument might be to let them see what will happen. How else can this endless argument about guns in the US be resolved.
-
They already have their way in the southern states, and we already see what happens. Gun deaths are on the rise, set to surpass car deaths this year. Mass shootings happen so often they're commonplace. But the pro-gun people insist the answer is yet more guns. So they learn nothing.
-
It goes much deeper than that. The gun is part of the American culture. Sam Colts famous singl action, the gun that " won " the west and all that, then followed up with the famous 1911 sem-auto, etc, etc. Big part of the American history. The western frontier made it even bigger.
How do you change that? How do you change the motto, " every American have the rights to defend themselves". Down in Texas, huge state, its about 99% for and 1% against.
This is so deep rooted its an impossibillity.
-
It goes much deeper than that. The gun is part of the American culture. Sam Colts famous singl action, the gun that " won " the west and all that, then followed up with the famous 1911 sem-auto, etc, etc. Big part of the American history. The western frontier made it even bigger.
How do you change that? How do you change the motto, " every American have the rights to defend themselves". Down in Texas, huge state, its about 99% for and 1% against.
This is so deep rooted its an impossibillity.
It's a good thing MLK didn't think that way.
Anyone have authoritative figures on Texan support for guns?
I could only find this:
http://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/archive/html/poll/features/gun_control_feature/slide1.html (http://texaspolitics.utexas.edu/archive/html/poll/features/gun_control_feature/slide1.html)
-
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx)
Factually incorrect again!
-
Sure, more-strict yes. That doesn't mean a ban. Just more strict, i.e. controled licens, FAC, etc. Far cry from a ban.
Pauws99! are you sure you were not a gunfighting town Marshall or a gun slinging outlaw like Billy the Pauws99 or something ;D ;D ;D
-
I like to see my bullets as those of the truth puncturing the balloons of errors of those who are incapable of checking their facts on google before filling up discussion threads with false assertions.
-
Yesterday's Daily Show with Trevor Noah was very funny and very to the point in addressing this huge american hypocrisy:
Enjoy this clip, in case you didn't see the whole show:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/daily-show-guns-abortion-trevor-noah_561380b9e4b0368a1a60e477 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/daily-show-guns-abortion-trevor-noah_561380b9e4b0368a1a60e477)
-
Yesterday's Daily Show with Trevor Noah was very funny and very to the point in addressing this huge american hypocrisy:
Enjoy this clip, in case you didn't see the whole show:
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/daily-show-guns-abortion-trevor-noah_561380b9e4b0368a1a60e477[/url] ([url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/daily-show-guns-abortion-trevor-noah_561380b9e4b0368a1a60e477[/url])
I know. Good post, read it this morning. Mind you about hypocricy. Show me one single country whose politicians isn't.
-
Yesterday's Daily Show with Trevor Noah was very funny and very to the point in addressing this huge american hypocrisy:
Enjoy this clip, in case you didn't see the whole show:
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/daily-show-guns-abortion-trevor-noah_561380b9e4b0368a1a60e477[/url] ([url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/daily-show-guns-abortion-trevor-noah_561380b9e4b0368a1a60e477[/url])
I know. Good post, read it this morning. Mind you about hypocricy. Show me one single country whose politicians isn't.
At last something to agree on.....note to self do not get distracted while keywording :-X
-
Yesterday's Daily Show with Trevor Noah was very funny and very to the point in addressing this huge american hypocrisy:
Enjoy this clip, in case you didn't see the whole show:
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/daily-show-guns-abortion-trevor-noah_561380b9e4b0368a1a60e477[/url] ([url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/daily-show-guns-abortion-trevor-noah_561380b9e4b0368a1a60e477[/url])
I know. Good post, read it this morning. Mind you about hypocricy. Show me one single country whose politicians isn't.
It may be so, but this is no reason to turn a blind eye to their double-standards and especially no reason to vote for such hypocrites.
Their pro-life rhetoric "begins at conception and ends at birth".
This is a good one :)
On the same topic, here is an attachment from viral post I came across.
-
Dig down deep enough, it all boils down to capitalism and corporate interests in the states. Politics is pretty much controlled by capitalism and corporate interests in both parties but it seems to me that its little more obvious on the republican side. The gun lobby has a lot of power.
The real painful issue in our lifetime is that the human population is multiplying unchecked and we all want that great way of life which is certainly not good for the planet as we see the real effect w climate change. Our generation will probably be responsible for the mass extinction many species. It would be sad if our grand children live in a world where there is no rhinos or gorillas, elephants etc...
-
Yesterday's Daily Show with Trevor Noah was very funny and very to the point in addressing this huge american hypocrisy:
Enjoy this clip, in case you didn't see the whole show:
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/daily-show-guns-abortion-trevor-noah_561380b9e4b0368a1a60e477[/url] ([url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/daily-show-guns-abortion-trevor-noah_561380b9e4b0368a1a60e477[/url])
I know. Good post, read it this morning. Mind you about hypocricy. Show me one single country whose politicians isn't.
It may be so, but this is no reason to turn a blind eye to their double-standards and especially no reason to vote for such hypocrites.
Their pro-life rhetoric "begins at conception and ends at birth".
This is a good one :)
On the same topic, here is an attachment from viral post I came across.
Intresting! no youre right one shouldnt turn a blind eye. Thats bad. Just so little if anything one can do. Unfortunately! I wish it was more. Its a frustrating issue indeed. :)
-
It goes much deeper than that. The gun is part of the American culture. Sam Colts famous singl action, the gun that " won " the west and all that, then followed up with the famous 1911 sem-auto, etc, etc. Big part of the American history. The western frontier made it even bigger.
How do you change that? How do you change the motto, " every American have the rights to defend themselves". Down in Texas, huge state, its about 99% for and 1% against.
This is so deep rooted its an impossibillity.
"A great majority of Texans – 85 percent – support requiring background checks on all gun sales. Texas Republicans favored the checks by 79 percent and NRA members by 65 percent in a poll conducted in April 2014.
The commissioners court in Travis County, TX. voted in February, 2014 to require that background checks be conducted on all gun sales in shows in its county facility. The gun show operator did not accept the condition and no longer has shows in the county exposition center, located in Austin.
Sources: http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/2014/06/01/new-research-shows-texans-support-stronger-laws-prevent-gun-violence"
-
It goes much deeper than that. The gun is part of the American culture. Sam Colts famous singl action, the gun that " won " the west and all that, then followed up with the famous 1911 sem-auto, etc, etc. Big part of the American history. The western frontier made it even bigger.
How do you change that? How do you change the motto, " every American have the rights to defend themselves". Down in Texas, huge state, its about 99% for and 1% against.
This is so deep rooted its an impossibillity.
"A great majority of Texans – 85 percent – support requiring background checks on all gun sales. Texas Republicans favored the checks by 79 percent and NRA members by 65 percent in a poll conducted in April 2014.
The commissioners court in Travis County, TX. voted in February, 2014 to require that background checks be conducted on all gun sales in shows in its county facility. The gun show operator did not accept the condition and no longer has shows in the county exposition center, located in Austin.
Sources: [url]http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/2014/06/01/new-research-shows-texans-support-stronger-laws-prevent-gun-violence[/url] ([url]http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/2014/06/01/new-research-shows-texans-support-stronger-laws-prevent-gun-violence[/url])"
I know I am actually quite familiar with Texas, have some family over there. What I meant was, more strict control don't mean a ban of weapons or whatever. I'm afraid in most countries only a ban would be effective. Zero tolerance.
-
Restricting medication would probably be more effective than gun control.
Lawmaker Calls For Study On Links Between Pharmaceuticals And Mass Killers
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-07/lawmaker-calls-study-links-between-pharmaceuticals-and-mass-killers (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-07/lawmaker-calls-study-links-between-pharmaceuticals-and-mass-killers)
-
Yes and in many European countries, when a burglar comes through the window waving a gun, you are supposed to use harsh language against his gun. God forbid if you should hit him over the head with something. He can then sue YOU for grevious bodily harm.
No matter how one twist and turn this question in the end nobody wins.
This is, of course, nonsense. You are allowed to use reasonable force in such a situation .
-
error---
-
I can understand the argument that people should have the freedom to bear arms for whatever principled reason but the idea that it wouldn't prevent shootings to ban people having guns is absolutely rediculous. There is so much evidence from all over the world that more stringent gun laws equals massively less shooting deaths. There's even a nice parallel in austrailia where they had liberal (small l) gun laws and tightened them up after shootings with the result of massively less gun deaths. Sadly it has become a tribal political issue in the US and can never be anything else with the massive arms industry involved.
The highest mass shooting ever committed in recent times was by that Breivik guy in Norway which has very strict gun laws. Also you had the Charlie Hebdo massacre in France, very strict gun laws there too. What people fail to remember sometimes is that the US is a fairly large place with a huge population, so of course stuff like this will happen more often. If you considered europe a "country" their share of shooting is not too much better.
What really worries me is why do these shooting keep happening in schools? Why not other places? Surely there are plenty of other areas where people congregate? This makes me think there is something dysfunctional going on with the social dynamics of the schools that could be leading to this. Ever hear the phrase "going postal"? It came about after a series of killings/shootings in the post office system by employees who were driven nuts by abusive management and a toxic workplace. I wonder if something similar is going on here. In case I am giving the impression that I am considering the shooters victims, I am not. I just think it would be good to look at the environment they were in the could of caused them to do this.
-
Wrong-o. Mass shooting and gun ownership statistics are figured out by the number of shootings per 100,000 people, so adding all of Europe together wouldn't change a thing. America has more shootings per person because it has more guns per person. Really simple. The mass shootings you use as examples are exceptions to the rule.
-
As discussed look at the stats, no it isn't because America is a bigger place. There are far more shootings disproportionately in America (per person).
The reason so many shootings are going on in schools is that teenage boys go nuts for a few years. I am sure there would be a lot of young men in Europe killing people too if it was as easy as it is in America. Most European children don't have easy access to guns. That's the difference. Look at the eleven year old who shot the girl next door because she wouldn't let him see the puppy, an eleven year old (or many 13 or 14 year olds) have no idea about what it means to take a life. They are just full of hormonal rage, that boy could just get hold of a gun, that's all.
On the it's nutters that are the problem argument, good luck doing anything about that when the NRA prevents gathering stats about ex felons or mental patients retaining gun licenses.
ETA, sorry missed the last post I was replying to the one before
-
..... I just don't let my anecdotal personal experiences outweigh the facts.....
Read my post properly. I said my studio is in Cadogan-square, I didn't say I lived there. Big difference. Well I suppose youre coming from something very dangerous then? funny but youre speaking of mutiple murders, drugs, prisons??
I thought you said earlier that London was so peaceful, nobody ever speaks about guns, knifes or anything. Oh well funny that.
Anyway the conversation is fruitless, people will still buy and own guns.
When did I say no one talks about guns? You live in one of the most peaceful least dangerous places in the world ever. Not only in the world today but in history.
What I am saying is I have seen crime and guns, but I am not letting my small personal experience outweigh the facts that I can easily look up from reputable sources before I flap my gums about a subject.
I was mugged so many times growing up I have lost count, often the muggers had knives. I never got stabbed, imagine if those young men had easy access to guns, you bet they would be carrying them if they could get them as easily/ cheaply as in the US. It is just so simple for things to get out of hand and a gun to go off when young men are waving them around. The gun changes everything.
-
Wrong-o. Mass shooting and gun ownership statistics are figured out by the number of shootings per 100,000 people, so adding all of Europe together wouldn't change a thing. America has more shootings per person because it has more guns per person. Really simple. The mass shootings you use as examples are exceptions to the rule.
correlation is not causation. If you go back, 50, 75, even 100 years in the US guns were even more prevalent and accessible to the average person, yet mass shootings were almost unheard of in those times. You don't think culture and environment contribute anything to gun violence? What about countries like Iceland who have a fairly high rate of gun ownership, but non-existent gun violence?
While these mass shooting are tragic, they are statistical outliers when compared to the whole. Mass shootings are responsible for less than 100 out of 12,000 annual homicides in the US. You are significantly more likely to die in a swimming pool then fall victim to a mass shooting. Being struck by lighting and being killed in a mass shooting are somewhat similar. Mass shootings are basically irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
It seems pretty extreme to go through the trouble of removing everyone gun for an insignificant problem.
-
if every single person has firearms, there would be lesser fire arms incidents around globe, i am pretty sure about that.
but who would carry 1-2kg of danerous iron - i always rather prefer to carry 2 or 3 beer cans.
:) :)
there is no simple answer regarding this matter.
-
"It seems pretty extreme to go through the trouble of removing everyone gun for an insignificant problem. "
Has any one suggested this? I thought people were talking about control just like the ownership of say cars is controlled.
-
Wrong-o. Mass shooting and gun ownership statistics are figured out by the number of shootings per 100,000 people, so adding all of Europe together wouldn't change a thing. America has more shootings per person because it has more guns per person. Really simple. The mass shootings you use as examples are exceptions to the rule.
correlation is not causation. If you go back, 50, 75, even 100 years in the US guns were even more prevalent and accessible to the average person, yet mass shootings were almost unheard of in those times. You don't think culture and environment contribute anything to gun violence? What about countries like Iceland who have a fairly high rate of gun ownership, but non-existent gun violence?
While these mass shooting are tragic, they are statistical outliers when compared to the whole. Mass shootings are responsible for less than 100 out of 12,000 annual homicides in the US. You are significantly more likely to die in a swimming pool then fall victim to a mass shooting. Being struck by lighting and being killed in a mass shooting are somewhat similar. Mass shootings are basically irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
It seems pretty extreme to go through the trouble of removing everyone gun for an insignificant problem.
There are 30,000 people killed by guns every year in the U.S. Pro-gun people like to break that down into the smallest pieces possible and pay attention to only one piece at a time. In this case you have broken out mass shootings, and you ignore the tens of thousands of other shootings which occur every single day. You also cherry pick one country, state or city which is an exception and use that as an example while ignoring the many more that form the rule. You really have to twist yourself into quite a knot to get around the overwhelming amount of evidence that exists when it comes to gun deaths.
-
can someone qoute me the text in the US constitution where it says that every man can carry a weapon? Please?
-
Wrong-o. Mass shooting and gun ownership statistics are figured out by the number of shootings per 100,000 people, so adding all of Europe together wouldn't change a thing. America has more shootings per person because it has more guns per person. Really simple. The mass shootings you use as examples are exceptions to the rule.
correlation is not causation. If you go back, 50, 75, even 100 years in the US guns were even more prevalent and accessible to the average person, yet mass shootings were almost unheard of in those times. You don't think culture and environment contribute anything to gun violence? What about countries like Iceland who have a fairly high rate of gun ownership, but non-existent gun violence?
While these mass shooting are tragic, they are statistical outliers when compared to the whole. Mass shootings are responsible for less than 100 out of 12,000 annual homicides in the US. You are significantly more likely to die in a swimming pool then fall victim to a mass shooting. Being struck by lighting and being killed in a mass shooting are somewhat similar. Mass shootings are basically irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
It seems pretty extreme to go through the trouble of removing everyone gun for an insignificant problem.
There are 30,000 people killed by guns every year in the U.S. Pro-gun people like to break that down into the smallest pieces possible and pay attention to only one piece at a time. In this case you have broken out mass shootings, and you ignore the tens of thousands of other shootings which occur every single day. You also cherry pick one country, state or city which is an exception and use that as an example while ignoring the many more that form the rule. You really have to twist yourself into quite a knot to get around the overwhelming amount of evidence that exists when it comes to gun deaths.
I guess I am guilty of breaking the types of shootings down as you've said. But I don't see why that is a big deal. The types of shootings, why, when and where really do matter. By lumping everything in together, it is designed to scare middle class people in nice neighborhoods that the dreaded gun plague could strike them at any second. The truth is, if your not a active gang member, involved in the drug trade or are unfortunate enough to live in one of several problematic US metros, your chance of getting shot is almost non-existent. A big portion of these gun deaths are criminals killing other criminals, that should be seen as a good thing, not a problem. Also, it includes people shooting other people in self defense. It includes police killing criminals as well. Depending on the statistics your looking at, many of the large figures you see passed around include suicides, which does not paint a very fair representation.
Unfortunately at times in my life I have lived in some of these problematic areas, and I frequently had to travel for periods of weeks at a time doing stock, leaving behind my wife and kids. If a criminal broke in they would be totally defenseless without a gun. A gun really levels the playing field in that type of situation. I know everyone will complain that this is totally anecdotal, and it is, but my life experiences have shown the importance of owning guns. I have been broken into several times and merely hearing the sound of the gun being cocked was enough to deter them each time. However, this may not be everyone experience and could of been a fluke but after that, guns are a 100% must in my life.
Going further, home defense is not really the point of the 2nd amendment anyway, it was really made to stop government tyranny. If you want to know how I came to that interpretation, all you need to do is read Thomas Jefferson writings who made it very clear exactly what the intention of the 2nd amendment really was. And yes, I know, I've seen the facebook meme pictures where they show a cheap shot gun next to a f-16 and a tank saying "if you think this can beat THIS, you are INSANE", however, I would like to remind the people who made that picture that the Taliban was successful in beating the full might of the US military with crappy half century old AK-47s and wearing rags in the mountains.
-
... You don't think culture and environment contribute anything to gun violence? What about countries like Iceland who have a fairly high rate of gun ownership, but non-existent gun violence?
Oh, I had no idea about Iceland, but I did find this perspective:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22288564 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22288564)
Where a culture and/or environment is likely to engender high levels of violence, why wouldn't you want gun ownership severely curtailed or banned?
Also, why would any society allow guns to be easily accessible to people on the Autism/Asperger's spectrum?
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/06/us/oregon-umpqua-shooting-mother-online-posts (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/06/us/oregon-umpqua-shooting-mother-online-posts)
-
It goes much deeper than that. The gun is part of the American culture. Sam Colts famous singl action, the gun that " won " the west and all that, then followed up with the famous 1911 sem-auto, etc, etc. Big part of the American history. The western frontier made it even bigger.
How do you change that? How do you change the motto, " every American have the rights to defend themselves". Down in Texas, huge state, its about 99% for and 1% against.
This is so deep rooted its an impossibillity.
You don't have to have an arsenal of AK-47s and other semi-automatic weapons to defend your home and go hunting. If you are collector of guns, they need to be locked up, so kids don't have access.
I used to shoot skeet and trap with my dad. He collected guns and had several. They weren't locked up. They didn't need to be. He taught us respect for them, how to handle them, and we weren't allowed to touch them unless he was with us. Parents don't teach their kids that anymore.
They need to be locked up, away from children. ESPECIALLY when you have a mentally-challenged child in the home. And stricter gun measures need to be instituted...there is no way in he11 a person with ANY kind of mental issue should be allowed to buy a gun, let alone buying semi-automatics and stockpiling an arsenal in their homes. Period.
Lots of things have changed over time. It used to be against the law to be gay, and that is changing too. This isn't the wild west anymore, for most people. If you live in a dangerous neighborhood, maybe, but that isn't the problem here.
As far as I know, nobody is asking for total denial of the right to bear an arm to defend yourself or go hunting. People are asking for stricter laws on purchasing the guns. But the gun folks can't even use common sense on that. It's their way or nothing at all.
-
... You don't think culture and environment contribute anything to gun violence? What about countries like Iceland who have a fairly high rate of gun ownership, but non-existent gun violence?
Oh, I had no idea about Iceland, but I did find this perspective:
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22288564[/url] ([url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22288564[/url])
Where a culture and/or environment is likely to engender high levels of violence, why wouldn't you want gun ownership severely curtailed or banned?
Also, why would any society allow guns to be easily accessible to people on the Autism/Asperger's spectrum?
[url]http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/06/us/oregon-umpqua-shooting-mother-online-posts[/url] ([url]http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/06/us/oregon-umpqua-shooting-mother-online-posts[/url])
Great article. What's a "fairly high rate of gun ownership"? Iceland has 30 guns per 100 people; the U.S. has 88, almost three times as many. In addition, so much about Iceland is different from the U.S.—a relatively egalitarian society and laws that make if DIFFICULT to buy a gun.
bpepz—if you're going to point to Iceland as an example, be honest with yourself about the low number of guns compared to the U.S., the more stringent requirements to own a gun, and the societal differences between the two countries. Would you be OK with destroying 2/3 of the guns in the U.S. and making getting a gun much more difficult? That sounds like a good start to me.
-
can someone qoute me the text in the US constitution where it says that every man can carry a weapon? Please?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
-
if every single person has firearms, there would be lesser fire arms incidents around globe, i am pretty sure about that.
but who would carry 1-2kg of danerous iron - i always rather prefer to carry 2 or 3 beer cans.
:) :)
there is no simple answer regarding this matter.
That is why people flee to war zones. For safety. ::)
-
News flash:
Today — JUST TODAY!!! — two more fatal campus shootings in the gun-lovin' US of A:
In Flagstaff, Arizona:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/09/us/northern-arizona-university-shooting/ (http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/09/us/northern-arizona-university-shooting/)
In Houston, Texas:
http://abc13.com/news/campus-lockdown-lifted-following-deadly-shooting-at-tsu/1025113/ (http://abc13.com/news/campus-lockdown-lifted-following-deadly-shooting-at-tsu/1025113/)
We must be nuts to put up with this.
-
This post isn't pro- or anti-gun, but just asks a question. I have asked it on several forums around the 'net in threads similar to this and have yet to get a response, so I'll try it here.
The question is, What Changed? Why now?
Virtually all guns available today were available 20-30 years ago. Assault, auto and semi-auto weapons have been widely available for a long time. The 2nd amendment has been around for 239 years. If anything, in many places, guns and/or ammo are harder to get now than they were a few years ago.
So, what changed? Why now?
It's not logical to say that the mass shootings of today are because of the availability of guns, because guns have always been available. When I was in high school, in the days of the Uzi, AK-47, and Mac-10, the thought of someone bringing a gun to school was unthinkable, much less that the gun would be used to kill people. Back then, anybody could buy any gun anywhere, but mass killings were unheard of. So, what changed?
I'm not saying that making guns and/or ammo harder to get won't help the problem. I don't have the answer for that.
I'm just asking, what changed?
Anybody?
-
Virtually all guns available today were available 20-30 years ago.
...
guns have always been available.
My answer would be this:
There are massive numbers of guns in America these days. Vastly more than were available 20-30 years ago. And because the NRA has forced a loosening of gun-control laws, it's much easier to get your hands on one, too.
PLUS… young people, especially young men, are made increasingly insensitive to violence because of super-violent films, video games, etc. These things didn't exist 20-30 years ago.
-
Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.
Yes, but a majority wants to keep gun ownership legal whether they personally own one or not. You should have a right to defend your home and family with deadly force. Not all of us live in an urban environment where the police are minutes away.
Having said that, I don't see a problem with strengthening the laws to make it more difficult to get a gun, especially for the crazies. All rights come with some restrictions. We have restrictions on speech; we can afford some more on gun ownership. But outright banning is wrong.
-
This post isn't pro- or anti-gun, but just asks a question. I have asked it on several forums around the 'net in threads similar to this and have yet to get a response, so I'll try it here.
The question is, What Changed? Why now?
Virtually all guns available today were available 20-30 years ago. Assault, auto and semi-auto weapons have been widely available for a long time. The 2nd amendment has been around for 239 years. If anything, in many places, guns and/or ammo are harder to get now than they were a few years ago.
So, what changed? Why now?
It's not logical to say that the mass shootings of today are because of the availability of guns, because guns have always been available. When I was in high school, in the days of the Uzi, AK-47, and Mac-10, the thought of someone bringing a gun to school was unthinkable, much less that the gun would be used to kill people. Back then, anybody could buy any gun anywhere, but mass killings were unheard of. So, what changed?
I'm not saying that making guns and/or ammo harder to get won't help the problem. I don't have the answer for that.
I'm just asking, what changed?
Anybody?
I tell you what the difference is: Media Saturation. These mass killers know that they will be able to cause lasting pain greater than what they inflict directly because the media will cover it over and over and over. They know the media will make them famous and cause anguish in the society that they feel has wronged them. They are lone wolf terrorists with their own agendas. Like terrorists, killing is their message and the media helps them spread it.
-
But outright banning is wrong.
Please tell me who in this country is talking about banning guns?
The only place I ever read or hear that is in the right-wing media and among activist groups, which have stirred up fear and panic among their target audience (low-information, easily frightened, gun-owning conservatives) with the scary-but-false story that "Obama is coming to take your guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
They've been playing the gun owners for suckers with that line for 6.5 years now, ever since Obama became president. What on earth are they going to do to stir up the panic (and keep the frightened ones' $$$$ flowing into their coffers) when the next president takes office? "Hillary is coming to take your guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" ???
-
Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.
Yes, but a majority wants to keep gun ownership legal whether they personally own one or not. You should have a right to defend your home and family with deadly force. Not all of us live in an urban environment where the police are minutes away.
Having said that, I don't see a problem with strengthening the laws to make it more difficult to get a gun, especially for the crazies. All rights come with some restrictions. We have restrictions on speech; we can afford some more on gun ownership. But outright banning is wrong.
No one needs an arsenal of semiautomatic weapons to defend their home. Nor do you need that to hunt deer. And no one, that i have ever heard, is talking about banning guns. Funny how that story just seems to keep being repeated.
-
This post isn't pro- or anti-gun, but just asks a question. I have asked it on several forums around the 'net in threads similar to this and have yet to get a response, so I'll try it here.
The question is, What Changed? Why now?
Virtually all guns available today were available 20-30 years ago. Assault, auto and semi-auto weapons have been widely available for a long time. The 2nd amendment has been around for 239 years. If anything, in many places, guns and/or ammo are harder to get now than they were a few years ago.
So, what changed? Why now?
It's not logical to say that the mass shootings of today are because of the availability of guns, because guns have always been available. When I was in high school, in the days of the Uzi, AK-47, and Mac-10, the thought of someone bringing a gun to school was unthinkable, much less that the gun would be used to kill people. Back then, anybody could buy any gun anywhere, but mass killings were unheard of. So, what changed?
I'm not saying that making guns and/or ammo harder to get won't help the problem. I don't have the answer for that.
I'm just asking, what changed?
Anybody?
I tell you what the difference is: Media Saturation. These mass killers know that they will be able to cause lasting pain greater than what they inflict directly because the media will cover it over and over and over. They know the media will make them famous and cause anguish in the society that they feel has wronged them. They are lone wolf terrorists with their own agendas. Like terrorists, killing is their message and the media helps them spread it.
I agree with you, that is certainly contributing to the problem.
-
can someone qoute me the text in the US constitution where it says that every man can carry a weapon? Please?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Thank you for quoting.
Please note there is a comma between the 2 sentences. And the sentence could be intrepretated as follows: To protect the free state, there should be a well organized militia, and therefore people can keep and bear arms.
A well organized militia is not what we see in the US.
The constitutional sentence actually breaks the triangle of power, and add a fourth element with power: The militia. To secure the state. it might be a good idea back then when the new free state was vunlerable to exploitation by feudal or war lords or commercial or religious interests.
Back then it was a regular mean of suppressors that they forbade anyone except the ruler to bear arms, and the sentence should be viewed in that light: So that people and the free state can continue to excist, it should be founded on the people, and their right to resist suppression by forming a militia.
In other words: Its a peoples right or duty to make a revolution and overthrow a supressor.
Thats sound and healthy enough and it often happens. The US constitution takes it a bit further, by writing down that its a right to bear and keep arms.
It was necessary back then, not so anymore, when there IS an army and a police force.
Ok thats history. That said, USA has a sick gun cult culture. Yes, I said sick. It is sick in the way that they spew out extremely violent films, the next worse than the former, no self sensorship, all blood and splatter, the more the better. When thats not enough they infect people with virus, so they turn into zombies and therefor can be legally shot. So there can be a lot of shooting in the film. All that contrary to the heavy sensorship there is on sex and nakedness.
So its an accelerating spiral of violence, more violence and more guns, more visuals.
And put these visuals on the screens of lonely boys of lonely mothers in a exceedingly competitative society. When the boy hurts, and he wants revenge, because he cannot find a reasonable way to his goals, and he wants and to hurt someone back, he of course does the splatter/ zombie thing. Thats the popular choice on the screen.
BTW.. I own several guns (rifles and shotguns), they are used for hunting. But they could be used for protection if...., but Id rather call the police and also its not likely that anything happens in this peacefull corner of the earth.
-
This post isn't pro- or anti-gun, but just asks a question. I have asked it on several forums around the 'net in threads similar to this and have yet to get a response, so I'll try it here.
The question is, What Changed? Why now?
Virtually all guns available today were available 20-30 years ago. Assault, auto and semi-auto weapons have been widely available for a long time. The 2nd amendment has been around for 239 years. If anything, in many places, guns and/or ammo are harder to get now than they were a few years ago.
So, what changed? Why now?
It's not logical to say that the mass shootings of today are because of the availability of guns, because guns have always been available. When I was in high school, in the days of the Uzi, AK-47, and Mac-10, the thought of someone bringing a gun to school was unthinkable, much less that the gun would be used to kill people. Back then, anybody could buy any gun anywhere, but mass killings were unheard of. So, what changed?
I'm not saying that making guns and/or ammo harder to get won't help the problem. I don't have the answer for that.
I'm just asking, what changed?
Anybody?
You asked what changed?
I would answer, that the FATHERS in America has stopped taking responsibility.
Meaning they are under huge economical pressure to live out the american dream, achieving material goods, establishing themselves as owners of things, so they cannot bear the burden of settleling down and raise children and hence their sons are not tought the basics in managing "the force". Meaning every man and his son is a warrior and a killer and violence has to be held behind a screen of politeness and self restriction. It is the fathers that teach their sons that self restriction, and it has been so since the viking ages where everybody had a sword, and were tought when NOT to use it. Same with guns.
-
But outright banning is wrong.
Please tell me who in this country is talking about banning guns?
The only place I ever read or hear that is in the right-wing media and among activist groups, which have stirred up fear and panic among their target audience (low-information, easily frightened, gun-owning conservatives) with the scary-but-false story that "Obama is coming to take your guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
They've been playing the gun owners for suckers with that line for 6.5 years now, ever since Obama became president. What on earth are they going to do to stir up the panic (and keep the frightened ones' $$$$ flowing into their coffers) when the next president takes office? "Hillary is coming to take your guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" ???
Shelma1 and half the people posting in this thread said specifically we should ban all the guns. So let's stop pretending that's not the end goal for some people.
On the other hand, I know banning guns is impossible. You'd need two-thirds of Congress, not just a majority, to agree to an amendment and then agreement by 38 of the 50 states. Not possible, at least not for a really long time.
-
This post isn't pro- or anti-gun, but just asks a question. I have asked it on several forums around the 'net in threads similar to this and have yet to get a response, so I'll try it here.
The question is, What Changed? Why now?
Virtually all guns available today were available 20-30 years ago. Assault, auto and semi-auto weapons have been widely available for a long time. The 2nd amendment has been around for 239 years. If anything, in many places, guns and/or ammo are harder to get now than they were a few years ago.
So, what changed? Why now?
It's not logical to say that the mass shootings of today are because of the availability of guns, because guns have always been available. When I was in high school, in the days of the Uzi, AK-47, and Mac-10, the thought of someone bringing a gun to school was unthinkable, much less that the gun would be used to kill people. Back then, anybody could buy any gun anywhere, but mass killings were unheard of. So, what changed?
I'm not saying that making guns and/or ammo harder to get won't help the problem. I don't have the answer for that.
I'm just asking, what changed?
Anybody?
There was an article recently in the Times that said mass shooters use previous shootings as a template for their actions.
But I think two things have changed. The first big one is the leadership and purpose of the NRA. From my understanding, it used to be an organization promoting responsible gun ownership. La Pierre turned it into something completely different, an organization married to gun manufacturers whose only goal is to sell as many guns as possible, and if millions of people die because of that, oh well, collateral damage.
The second is the browning of America. White men are becoming a smaller and smaller minority, and everyone else is clamoring for equality, so the white guys see their iron grip on power maybe someday loosening a bit. When a black man was elected President it really freaked them out. So the NRA and gun lobby plays on that fear. That's why you hear more and more about the Second Amendment..many of these people quite literally believe they'll have to overthrow the government soon, and even talk about starting a civil war if anyone dares pass stricter gun regulation.
-
This post isn't pro- or anti-gun, but just asks a question. I have asked it on several forums around the 'net in threads similar to this and have yet to get a response, so I'll try it here.
The question is, What Changed? Why now?
Virtually all guns available today were available 20-30 years ago. Assault, auto and semi-auto weapons have been widely available for a long time. The 2nd amendment has been around for 239 years. If anything, in many places, guns and/or ammo are harder to get now than they were a few years ago.
So, what changed? Why now?
It's not logical to say that the mass shootings of today are because of the availability of guns, because guns have always been available. When I was in high school, in the days of the Uzi, AK-47, and Mac-10, the thought of someone bringing a gun to school was unthinkable, much less that the gun would be used to kill people. Back then, anybody could buy any gun anywhere, but mass killings were unheard of. So, what changed?
I'm not saying that making guns and/or ammo harder to get won't help the problem. I don't have the answer for that.
I'm just asking, what changed?
Anybody?
There was an article recently in the Times that said mass shooter use previous shootings as a template for their actions.
But I think two things have changed. The first big one is tha leadership and purpose of the NRA. From my understanding, it used to be an organization promoting responsible gun ownership. La Pierre turned it into something completely different, an organization married to gun manufacturers whose only goal is to sell as many guns as possible, and if millions of people die because of that, oh well, collateral damage.
The second is the browning of America. White men are becoming a smaller and smaller minority, and everyone else is clamoring for equality, so the white guys see their iron grip on power maybe someday loosening a bit. When a black man was elected President it really freaked them out. So the NRA and gun lobby plays on that fear. That's why you hear more and more about the Second Amendment..many of these people quite literally believe they'll have to overthrow the government soon, and even talk about starting a civil war if anyone dares pass stricter gun regulation.
Not one bit of that ignorance explains why there are more mass shootings than previously, despite the fact that guns have always been available. You made no effort to honestly answer the question.
Blaming gun deaths on "Angry White Male" syndrome is beyond ridiculous when most gun crimes are committed by blacks and Hispanics, and most victims are black.
-
2/3 of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides, and 80% of those suicides are committed by white males. That means that white men killing themselves accounts for more than half of all gun deaths every year in this country. Nothing else even comes close. Not black gangs killing each other, or mass shootings, or even men killing their wives and girlfriends.
-
It seems pretty extreme to go through the trouble of removing everyone gun for an insignificant problem.
Would you feel that way if your child had been killed in school?
Or your wife had been killed by a hunter in her own garden - and he got off with it?
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/10/magazine/a-killing-in-maine.html?pagewanted=all (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/10/magazine/a-killing-in-maine.html?pagewanted=all) (This particular incident, and the hunter's acquittal, met with complete disbelief in the UK. Even now when I tell people about it, they generally think it's an urban or internet myth, so impossible does it seem.)
-
... But outright banning is wrong.
"In your opinion."
-
Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.
Yes, but a majority wants to keep gun ownership legal whether they personally own one or not. You should have a right to defend your home and family with deadly force. Not all of us live in an urban environment where the police are minutes away.
This is Ok, but then people must stop using the second ammendment to justify it.
The right to defend your family is understandable, but it is not enshrined in the Constitution. The constitution talks about the Security of a Free State, not about security of individuals.
Moreover, it implies that people bearing arms are those Militia members, not just independent individuals. Being an NRA member doesn't mean member of a militia.
And that militia and the gun ownership must be "well regulated".
It is almost like the founding fathers have anticipated that today's situation, with "free for all", virtually unregulated gun ownership, is bad.
In modern days, forced and twisted interpretations in courts have modified the initial meaning, as it happened in other cases (eg. corporations are people, 10th ammendment nullification, etc).
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
-
2/3 of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides, and 80% of those suicides are committed by white males. That means that white men killing themselves accounts for more than half of all gun deaths every year in this country. Nothing else even comes close. Not black gangs killing each other, or mass shootings, or even men killing their wives and girlfriends.
No one seriously considers suicide to be a gun crime. Those would occur with or without guns. Typical left-wing deflection and unwillingness to discuss the issue honestly.
Most assaults and murders with guns are not committed by whites.
-
Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.
Yes, but a majority wants to keep gun ownership legal whether they personally own one or not. You should have a right to defend your home and family with deadly force. Not all of us live in an urban environment where the police are minutes away.
This is Ok, but then people must stop using the second ammendment to justify it.
The right to defend your family is understandable, but it is not enshrined in the Constitution. The constitution talks about the Security of a Free State, not about security of individuals.
Moreover, it implies that people bearing arms are those Militia members, not just independent individuals. Being an NRA member doesn't mean member of a militia.
And that militia and the gun ownership must be "well regulated".
It is almost like the founding fathers have anticipated that today's situation, with "free for all", virtually unregulated gun ownership, is bad.
In modern days, forced and twisted interpretations in courts have modified the initial meaning, as it happened in other cases (eg. corporations are people, 10th ammendment nullification, etc).
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
We have courts to interpret what it says because we don't agree on what it means.
The way I read it is that you can't have a well regulated militia when you need one unless people already have the right to own guns and that the ability to form a militia is just one reason for firearm ownership, not the only one. Also, the bill of rights (the first 10 amendments) itself refers to individual rights, not the rights of the whole. As a nation, we guarantee these rights even if the majority finds the rights distasteful. That's what makes it great.
The fact is that the founding fathers wanted to make sure U.S. citizens already had firearms in the event they needed to organize a militia in a time of crisis to protect their homes and communities. That need still exists even with a standing Army and police force. Nobody can predict the future. The military and police are not always available.
-
Maybe the people in the US should form the Militia first, before they hand out guns. Like they do in Switzerland and also here in Denmark.
The words "well regulated" in the constitution are there exactly to prevent all the loonetics from running around in a frenzy and shoot children in schools.
-
Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.
Yes, but a majority wants to keep gun ownership legal whether they personally own one or not. You should have a right to defend your home and family with deadly force. Not all of us live in an urban environment where the police are minutes away.
This is Ok, but then people must stop using the second ammendment to justify it.
The right to defend your family is understandable, but it is not enshrined in the Constitution. The constitution talks about the Security of a Free State, not about security of individuals.
Moreover, it implies that people bearing arms are those Militia members, not just independent individuals. Being an NRA member doesn't mean member of a militia.
And that militia and the gun ownership must be "well regulated".
It is almost like the founding fathers have anticipated that today's situation, with "free for all", virtually unregulated gun ownership, is bad.
In modern days, forced and twisted interpretations in courts have modified the initial meaning, as it happened in other cases (eg. corporations are people, 10th ammendment nullification, etc).
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
We have courts to interpret what it says because we don't agree on what it means.
The way I read it is that you can't have a well regulated militia when you need one unless people already have the right to own guns and that the ability to form a militia is just one reason for firearm ownership, not the only one. Also, the bill of rights (the first 10 amendments) itself refers to individual rights, not the rights of the whole. As a nation, we guarantee these rights even if the majority finds the rights distasteful. That's what makes it great.
The fact is that the founding fathers wanted to make sure U.S. citizens already had firearms in the event they needed to organize a militia in a time of crisis to protect their homes and communities. That need still exists even with a standing Army and police force. Nobody can predict the future. The military and police are not always available.
Protecting your home from a burglar is not the same as protecting a "free state". This is a forced interpretation. It rather means protecting the free state institutions (ie from dictatorship and such)
So, instead of saying that you have guns because you don't live in a big city and the police is not always around, you must say that you have guns to save the "free state" from some future evil dictator. Or else, don't use the 2nd ammendment to justify your hobby or your need for home protection.
Additionally, "well regulated" is stronger than just "regulated" and far stronger than today's "free for all" virtually unregulated gun ownership.
There are places where you can buy guns in a supermarket, but not alcohol.
What a hypocrisy!
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
.
-
2/3 of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides, and 80% of those suicides are committed by white males. That means that white men killing themselves accounts for more than half of all gun deaths every year in this country. Nothing else even comes close. Not black gangs killing each other, or mass shootings, or even men killing their wives and girlfriends.
No one seriously considers suicide to be a gun crime. Those would occur with or without guns. Typical left-wing deflection and unwillingness to discuss the issue honestly.
Most assaults and murders with guns are not committed by whites.
I think this writer states the issue very well in this opinion piece. "The price of redefining gun violence as an issue pertaining only to "those people" -- of casting and recasting the gun statistics to make them less grisly if only "those people" are toted under some different heading in some different ledger -- the price of that redefinition is to lose our ability to think about the problem at all." http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/opinion/frum-guns-race/ (http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/opinion/frum-guns-race/)
There are more than 30,000 gun deaths in the U.S. every year, many many more than in any other comparable country. As I stated before, pro-gun people in the U.S. like to break down those gun deaths into the smallest possible pieces, then look at one piece at a time...out of context.
If you want to look at suicides, also look at the statistics showing that guns are by far the most effective means to commit suicide, and that most people who attempt suicide and fail are NOT likely to attempt it again. In other words, if you take guns out of the equation, more people who attempted suicide would be more likely to fail, and unlikely to attempt it again. So they would survive.
You have to look at the forest and stop breaking it down into individual trees. The proliferation of guns in this country makes it easier for white men to kill themselves, black men to kill each other, men to kill women, criminals to commit crimes, children to shoot their siblings, students to shoot other students, and toddlers to shoot their mothers in the grocery store. The whole forest of gun deaths happen because we have too many guns and they're too easy to get.
-
2/3 of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides, and 80% of those suicides are committed by white males. That means that white men killing themselves accounts for more than half of all gun deaths every year in this country. Nothing else even comes close. Not black gangs killing each other, or mass shootings, or even men killing their wives and girlfriends.
No one seriously considers suicide to be a gun crime. Those would occur with or without guns. Typical left-wing deflection and unwillingness to discuss the issue honestly.
Most assaults and murders with guns are not committed by whites.
I think this writer states the issue very well in this opinion piece. "The price of redefining gun violence as an issue pertaining only to "those people" -- of casting and recasting the gun statistics to make them less grisly if only "those people" are toted under some different heading in some different ledger -- the price of that redefinition is to lose our ability to think about the problem at all." [url]http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/opinion/frum-guns-race/[/url] ([url]http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/opinion/frum-guns-race/[/url])
There are more than 30,000 gun deaths in the U.S. every year, many many more than in any other comparable country. As I stated before, pro-gun people in the U.S. like to break down those gun deaths into the smallest possible pieces, then look at one piece at a time...out of context.
If you want to look at suicides, also look at the statistics showing that guns are by far the most effective means to commit suicide, and that most people who attempt suicide and fail are NOT likely to attempt it again. In other words, if you take guns out of the equation, more people who attempted suicide would be more likely to fail, and unlikely to attempt it again. So they would survive.
You have to look at the forest and stop breaking it down into individual trees. The proliferation of guns in this country makes it easier for white men to kill themselves, black men to kill each other, men to kill women, criminals to commit crimes, children to shoot their siblings, students to shoot other students, and toddlers to shoot their mothers in the grocery store. The whole forest of gun deaths happen because we have too many guns and they're too easy to get.
The anti-gun loonies like to include suicides because their numbers don't add up to fit their narrative otherwise. Without suicides, the leading cause of death among Americans is traffic accidents. Fact is, you have a much larger chance of dying today in a traffic accident than you do of getting killed in a spree shooting or other crime.
If you're worried about suicides, then you need to ban prescription pills, rope, belts and all the other methods used. Suicides are a mental health issue, not a gun issue.
-
Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.
Yes, but a majority wants to keep gun ownership legal whether they personally own one or not. You should have a right to defend your home and family with deadly force. Not all of us live in an urban environment where the police are minutes away.
This is Ok, but then people must stop using the second ammendment to justify it.
The right to defend your family is understandable, but it is not enshrined in the Constitution. The constitution talks about the Security of a Free State, not about security of individuals.
Moreover, it implies that people bearing arms are those Militia members, not just independent individuals. Being an NRA member doesn't mean member of a militia.
And that militia and the gun ownership must be "well regulated".
It is almost like the founding fathers have anticipated that today's situation, with "free for all", virtually unregulated gun ownership, is bad.
In modern days, forced and twisted interpretations in courts have modified the initial meaning, as it happened in other cases (eg. corporations are people, 10th ammendment nullification, etc).
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
We have courts to interpret what it says because we don't agree on what it means.
The way I read it is that you can't have a well regulated militia when you need one unless people already have the right to own guns and that the ability to form a militia is just one reason for firearm ownership, not the only one. Also, the bill of rights (the first 10 amendments) itself refers to individual rights, not the rights of the whole. As a nation, we guarantee these rights even if the majority finds the rights distasteful. That's what makes it great.
The fact is that the founding fathers wanted to make sure U.S. citizens already had firearms in the event they needed to organize a militia in a time of crisis to protect their homes and communities. That need still exists even with a standing Army and police force. Nobody can predict the future. The military and police are not always available.
Protecting your home from a burglar is not the same as protecting a "free state". This is a forced interpretation. It rather means protecting the free state institutions (ie from dictatorship and such)
So, instead of saying that you have guns because you don't live in a big city and the police is not always around, you must say that you have guns to save the "free state" from some future evil dictator. Or else, don't use the 2nd ammendment to justify your hobby or your need for home protection.
Additionally, "well regulated" is stronger than just "regulated" and far stronger than today's "free for all" virtually unregulated gun ownership.
There are places where you can buy guns in a supermarket, but not alcohol.
What a hypocrisy!
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
.
You can't have a well-regulated militia unless the citizens already have guns.
Even so, that's only one reason we are guaranteed the right to gun ownership as stated in the 2nd Amendment. You're interpreting it incorrectly. The Supreme Court, the highest law of the land, doesn't read it that way, and we have to respect that because that's the democratic system we have put in place. And it has worked since the rest of the world was ruled by kings and queens.
And I never used the 2nd Amendment as my only justification for self-defense. Protecting your life, your family's life and your property is a natural right enshrined by federal and state laws.
-
The anti-gun loonies like to include suicides because their numbers don't add up to fit their narrative otherwise. Without suicides, the leading cause of death among Americans is traffic accidents.
"Likewise, not counting hurricanes, America would not have so many natural disasters. Not counting divorces, America would have more intact families. Not counting wars, America would have a smaller public debt. But what's the point of this exercise? The people who make up America count as Americans, and their problems count as America's problems. Their problems do not occur in isolation, but are manifestations of failures to which all Americans contributed together."
-
Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.
Yes, but a majority wants to keep gun ownership legal whether they personally own one or not. You should have a right to defend your home and family with deadly force. Not all of us live in an urban environment where the police are minutes away.
This is Ok, but then people must stop using the second ammendment to justify it.
The right to defend your family is understandable, but it is not enshrined in the Constitution. The constitution talks about the Security of a Free State, not about security of individuals.
Moreover, it implies that people bearing arms are those Militia members, not just independent individuals. Being an NRA member doesn't mean member of a militia.
And that militia and the gun ownership must be "well regulated".
It is almost like the founding fathers have anticipated that today's situation, with "free for all", virtually unregulated gun ownership, is bad.
In modern days, forced and twisted interpretations in courts have modified the initial meaning, as it happened in other cases (eg. corporations are people, 10th ammendment nullification, etc).
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
We have courts to interpret what it says because we don't agree on what it means.
The way I read it is that you can't have a well regulated militia when you need one unless people already have the right to own guns and that the ability to form a militia is just one reason for firearm ownership, not the only one. Also, the bill of rights (the first 10 amendments) itself refers to individual rights, not the rights of the whole. As a nation, we guarantee these rights even if the majority finds the rights distasteful. That's what makes it great.
The fact is that the founding fathers wanted to make sure U.S. citizens already had firearms in the event they needed to organize a militia in a time of crisis to protect their homes and communities. That need still exists even with a standing Army and police force. Nobody can predict the future. The military and police are not always available.
Protecting your home from a burglar is not the same as protecting a "free state". This is a forced interpretation. It rather means protecting the free state institutions (ie from dictatorship and such)
So, instead of saying that you have guns because you don't live in a big city and the police is not always around, you must say that you have guns to save the "free state" from some future evil dictator. Or else, don't use the 2nd ammendment to justify your hobby or your need for home protection.
Additionally, "well regulated" is stronger than just "regulated" and far stronger than today's "free for all" virtually unregulated gun ownership.
There are places where you can buy guns in a supermarket, but not alcohol.
What a hypocrisy!
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
.
You can't have a well-regulated militia unless the citizens already have guns.
Even so, that's only one reason we are guaranteed the right to gun ownership as stated in the 2nd Amendment. You're interpreting it incorrectly. The Supreme Court, the highest law of the land, doesn't read it that way, and we have to respect that because that's the democratic system we have put in place. And it has worked since the rest of the world was ruled by kings and queens.
This is not an argument.
Of course I respect and comply with the law, but it doesn't mean I must agree with everything the government or the supreme court decides.
Especially when such arguments defy simple logic only to protect special interests.
This is exactly what worked well in US since the Kings and Queens.
What you do is replacing the Kings and Queens unchallangeble highest law of the land with the Supreme Court unchallangeble highest law of the land.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
-
Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.
Yes, but a majority wants to keep gun ownership legal whether they personally own one or not. You should have a right to defend your home and family with deadly force. Not all of us live in an urban environment where the police are minutes away.
This is Ok, but then people must stop using the second ammendment to justify it.
The right to defend your family is understandable, but it is not enshrined in the Constitution. The constitution talks about the Security of a Free State, not about security of individuals.
Moreover, it implies that people bearing arms are those Militia members, not just independent individuals. Being an NRA member doesn't mean member of a militia.
And that militia and the gun ownership must be "well regulated".
It is almost like the founding fathers have anticipated that today's situation, with "free for all", virtually unregulated gun ownership, is bad.
In modern days, forced and twisted interpretations in courts have modified the initial meaning, as it happened in other cases (eg. corporations are people, 10th ammendment nullification, etc).
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
We have courts to interpret what it says because we don't agree on what it means.
The way I read it is that you can't have a well regulated militia when you need one unless people already have the right to own guns and that the ability to form a militia is just one reason for firearm ownership, not the only one. Also, the bill of rights (the first 10 amendments) itself refers to individual rights, not the rights of the whole. As a nation, we guarantee these rights even if the majority finds the rights distasteful. That's what makes it great.
The fact is that the founding fathers wanted to make sure U.S. citizens already had firearms in the event they needed to organize a militia in a time of crisis to protect their homes and communities. That need still exists even with a standing Army and police force. Nobody can predict the future. The military and police are not always available.
Protecting your home from a burglar is not the same as protecting a "free state". This is a forced interpretation. It rather means protecting the free state institutions (ie from dictatorship and such)
So, instead of saying that you have guns because you don't live in a big city and the police is not always around, you must say that you have guns to save the "free state" from some future evil dictator. Or else, don't use the 2nd ammendment to justify your hobby or your need for home protection.
Additionally, "well regulated" is stronger than just "regulated" and far stronger than today's "free for all" virtually unregulated gun ownership.
There are places where you can buy guns in a supermarket, but not alcohol.
What a hypocrisy!
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
.
You can't have a well-regulated militia unless the citizens already have guns.
Even so, that's only one reason we are guaranteed the right to gun ownership as stated in the 2nd Amendment. You're interpreting it incorrectly. The Supreme Court, the highest law of the land, doesn't read it that way, and we have to respect that because that's the democratic system we have put in place. And it has worked since the rest of the world was ruled by kings and queens.
This is not an argument.
Of course I respect and comply with the law, but it doesn't mean I must agree with everything the government or the supreme court decides.
Especially when such arguments defy simple logic only to protect special interests.
This is exactly what worked well in US since the Kings and Queens.
What you do is replacing the Kings and Queens unchallangeble will with the Supreme Court will.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
It can be challenged. Support a new amendment to change it, which would overrule the Supreme Court. That's the process we have. You don't have to respect the decision; you do have to respect the process.
-
The anti-gun loonies like to include suicides because their numbers don't add up to fit their narrative otherwise. Without suicides, the leading cause of death among Americans is traffic accidents.
"Likewise, not counting hurricanes, America would not have so many natural disasters. Not counting divorces, America would have more intact families. Not counting wars, America would have a smaller public debt. But what's the point of this exercise? The people who make up America count as Americans, and their problems count as America's problems. Their problems do not occur in isolation, but are manifestations of failures to which all Americans contributed together."
Like you said, it's an opinion piece. I think it's a failure of logic. Suicides are not a gun issue just like divorce isn't a wedding ring issue.
-
Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.
Yes, but a majority wants to keep gun ownership legal whether they personally own one or not. You should have a right to defend your home and family with deadly force. Not all of us live in an urban environment where the police are minutes away.
This is Ok, but then people must stop using the second ammendment to justify it.
The right to defend your family is understandable, but it is not enshrined in the Constitution. The constitution talks about the Security of a Free State, not about security of individuals.
Moreover, it implies that people bearing arms are those Militia members, not just independent individuals. Being an NRA member doesn't mean member of a militia.
And that militia and the gun ownership must be "well regulated".
It is almost like the founding fathers have anticipated that today's situation, with "free for all", virtually unregulated gun ownership, is bad.
In modern days, forced and twisted interpretations in courts have modified the initial meaning, as it happened in other cases (eg. corporations are people, 10th ammendment nullification, etc).
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
We have courts to interpret what it says because we don't agree on what it means.
The way I read it is that you can't have a well regulated militia when you need one unless people already have the right to own guns and that the ability to form a militia is just one reason for firearm ownership, not the only one. Also, the bill of rights (the first 10 amendments) itself refers to individual rights, not the rights of the whole. As a nation, we guarantee these rights even if the majority finds the rights distasteful. That's what makes it great.
The fact is that the founding fathers wanted to make sure U.S. citizens already had firearms in the event they needed to organize a militia in a time of crisis to protect their homes and communities. That need still exists even with a standing Army and police force. Nobody can predict the future. The military and police are not always available.
Protecting your home from a burglar is not the same as protecting a "free state". This is a forced interpretation. It rather means protecting the free state institutions (ie from dictatorship and such)
So, instead of saying that you have guns because you don't live in a big city and the police is not always around, you must say that you have guns to save the "free state" from some future evil dictator. Or else, don't use the 2nd ammendment to justify your hobby or your need for home protection.
Additionally, "well regulated" is stronger than just "regulated" and far stronger than today's "free for all" virtually unregulated gun ownership.
There are places where you can buy guns in a supermarket, but not alcohol.
What a hypocrisy!
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
.
You can't have a well-regulated militia unless the citizens already have guns.
Even so, that's only one reason we are guaranteed the right to gun ownership as stated in the 2nd Amendment. You're interpreting it incorrectly. The Supreme Court, the highest law of the land, doesn't read it that way, and we have to respect that because that's the democratic system we have put in place. And it has worked since the rest of the world was ruled by kings and queens.
This is not an argument.
Of course I respect and comply with the law, but it doesn't mean I must agree with everything the government or the supreme court decides.
Especially when such arguments defy simple logic only to protect special interests.
This is exactly what worked well in US since the Kings and Queens.
What you do is replacing the Kings and Queens unchallangeble will with the Supreme Court will.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
It can be challenged. Support a new amendment to change it, which would overrule the Supreme Court. That's the process we have. You don't have to respect the decision; you do have to respect the process.
Exactly!
We only have to convice people like you to join and support proper gun ownership laws, something logic, that makes sense, instead of playing that absurd constitutional game.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
-
I support more extensive background checks and closing the private transfer loophole (including gun shows). All sales should be recorded to prevent gun trafficking. I also support limiting weapons purchases to one a month, again to prevent trafficking. Really, how many guns do you need for self-defense? Maybe a rifle and a pistol at most?
But how much will it help? The background check system completely failed in the Charleston shootings because the government was its usual incompetent self.
And keeping the mentally ill from getting guns is difficult. I support the idea of keeping crazy people from getting guns, but I don't like the idea of a mental illness being reported to the government. It should be something that is private. Also, who is going to judge if someone is mentally ill enough to lose a civil right? A government doctor? A court? Can you get your right back when you're judged mentally healthy? There are too many questions and concerns.
-
The anti-gun loonies like to include suicides because their numbers don't add up to fit their narrative otherwise. Without suicides, the leading cause of death among Americans is traffic accidents.
"Likewise, not counting hurricanes, America would not have so many natural disasters. Not counting divorces, America would have more intact families. Not counting wars, America would have a smaller public debt. But what's the point of this exercise? The people who make up America count as Americans, and their problems count as America's problems. Their problems do not occur in isolation, but are manifestations of failures to which all Americans contributed together."
Like you said, it's an opinion piece. I think it's a failure of logic. Suicides are not a gun issue just like divorce isn't a wedding ring issue.
I see a lot of failures of logic in all your arguments for guns. You refuse to look at worldwide statistics about how the amount of guns correlates to the amount of gun deaths. You refuse to see anything as a gun issue; it's a black gang issue, or a mental health issue, or a liberal loony issue, or anything but the obvious elephant in the room, which is the proliferation of guns.
You simply ignore statistics that show suicides could be reduced if there were fewer guns; mass shootings could be reduced, murders, accidental shootings, school shootings, etc. etc. etc. Instead you make a "logical" statement about divorce not being a wedding ring issue.
All the people from countries other than ours who can't understand why we have so many guns can now see the thinking process many Americans are simply amazed by. So thanks for sharing that.
-
The anti-gun loonies like to include suicides because their numbers don't add up to fit their narrative otherwise. Without suicides, the leading cause of death among Americans is traffic accidents.
"Likewise, not counting hurricanes, America would not have so many natural disasters. Not counting divorces, America would have more intact families. Not counting wars, America would have a smaller public debt. But what's the point of this exercise? The people who make up America count as Americans, and their problems count as America's problems. Their problems do not occur in isolation, but are manifestations of failures to which all Americans contributed together."
Like you said, it's an opinion piece. I think it's a failure of logic. Suicides are not a gun issue just like divorce isn't a wedding ring issue.
I see a lot of failures of logic in all your arguments for guns. You refuse to look at worldwide statistics about how the amount of guns correlates to the amount of gun deaths. You refuse to see anything as a gun issue; it's a black gang issue, or a mental health issue, or a liberal loony issue, or anything but the obvious elephant in the room, which is the proliferation of guns.
You simply ignore statistics that show suicides could be reduced if there were fewer guns; mass shootings could be reduced, murders, accidental shootings, school shootings, etc. etc. etc. Instead you make a "logical" statement about divorce not being a wedding ring issue.
All the people from countries other than ours who can't understand why we have so many guns can now see the thinking process many Americans are simply amazed by. So thanks for sharing that.
I look at the worldwide statistics. I just don't care about them. My right to self-defense is more important than preventing suicide by gun or anything else you bring up. I don't want to live in a country that gives a burglar more rights than a homeowner. They can be amazed, confused, disappointed or whatever they want. I just don't care what you or they think. I'm exhausted by people who live in New York and San Francisco telling me how I should live, when they live in some weird bubble that is totally divorced from reality.
A free society doesn't remove basic civil rights from all people because a few choose to abuse those rights.
If we follow your suicide theory to its logical conclusion, then we should ban everything that makes it easier for people to kill themselves. We should ban snack foods, tobacco, alcohol, sugary drinks and cars just for starters. At what point would it be enough? How many people do we have to save from themselves?
-
I support more extensive background checks and closing the private transfer loophole (including gun shows). All sales should be recorded to prevent gun trafficking. I also support limiting weapons purchases to one a month, again to prevent trafficking. Really, how many guns do you need for self-defense? Maybe a rifle and a pistol at most?
But how much will it help? The background check system completely failed in the Charleston shootings because the government was its usual incompetent self.
And keeping the mentally ill from getting guns is difficult. I support the idea of keeping crazy people from getting guns, but I don't like the idea of a mental illness being reported to the government. It should be something that is private. Also, who is going to judge if someone is mentally ill enough to lose a civil right? A government doctor? A court? Can you get your right back when you're judged mentally healthy? There are too many questions and concerns.
I agree with you that laws against mentally ill people are a slippery slope and a dead end, anyway. This only an NRA game meant to maintain the status quo. I mentioned before, that dictators used the "mentally ill weapon" to silence their critics.
The other proposals you support are logical and closer to the "well regulated" constitutional requirement and closer to what other civilized countries have in place.
So start by voting for those politicians who are not afraid to fight for those changes.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
-
I look at the worldwide statistics. I just don't care about them. My right to self-defense is more important than preventing suicide by gun or anything else you bring up.
I guess murderers where you live must be far more polite than ours, waiting for you to go and fetch your gun for a 'fair fight'.
Or do you literally have your gun in your hand or on your hip at all times, and never go to sleep?
Who defends school kids? Do your teachers work with their guns in their hands ready to shoot?
Your argument is illogical. Unless the above are all true.
Why do you think your "right to self-defence" is more important than protecting kids in school?
-
More stringent checks are only one step in the right direction.
Thomas Hamilton who carried out the Dunblane school massacre had no previous legal indications (at a time when people could own handguns here under strict conditions) that he should not be granted a gun licence, and he was in his forties.
Besides, it would lead to a black market, and people feeling even more aggrieved and disenfranchised when some could have guns and they couldn't - a dangerous situation.
-
The anti-gun loonies like to include suicides because their numbers don't add up to fit their narrative otherwise. Without suicides, the leading cause of death among Americans is traffic accidents.
"Likewise, not counting hurricanes, America would not have so many natural disasters. Not counting divorces, America would have more intact families. Not counting wars, America would have a smaller public debt. But what's the point of this exercise? The people who make up America count as Americans, and their problems count as America's problems. Their problems do not occur in isolation, but are manifestations of failures to which all Americans contributed together."
Like you said, it's an opinion piece. I think it's a failure of logic. Suicides are not a gun issue just like divorce isn't a wedding ring issue.
I see a lot of failures of logic in all your arguments for guns. You refuse to look at worldwide statistics about how the amount of guns correlates to the amount of gun deaths. You refuse to see anything as a gun issue; it's a black gang issue, or a mental health issue, or a liberal loony issue, or anything but the obvious elephant in the room, which is the proliferation of guns.
You simply ignore statistics that show suicides could be reduced if there were fewer guns; mass shootings could be reduced, murders, accidental shootings, school shootings, etc. etc. etc. Instead you make a "logical" statement about divorce not being a wedding ring issue.
All the people from countries other than ours who can't understand why we have so many guns can now see the thinking process many Americans are simply amazed by. So thanks for sharing that.
I look at the worldwide statistics. I just don't care about them. My right to self-defense is more important than preventing suicide by gun or anything else you bring up. I don't want to live in a country that gives a burglar more rights than a homeowner. They can be amazed, confused, disappointed or whatever they want. I just don't care what you or they think. I'm exhausted by people who live in New York and San Francisco telling me how I should live, when they live in some weird bubble that is totally divorced from reality.
A free society doesn't remove basic civil rights from all people because a few choose to abuse those rights.
If we follow your suicide theory to its logical conclusion, then we should ban everything that makes it easier for people to kill themselves. We should ban snack foods, tobacco, alcohol, sugary drinks and cars just for starters. At what point would it be enough? How many people do we have to save from themselves?
Well, you've reached the point of complete ridiculousness. But thanks for admitting you don't care about evidence; that pretty much sums it up.
You may be tired of the majority of Americans "telling you what to do", but you know what we're tired of? The minority of you putting the rest of us at higher risk of death because of your irrational love of guns. So excuse us for being pretty disgusted with you.
-
The anti-gun loonies like to include suicides because their numbers don't add up to fit their narrative otherwise. Without suicides, the leading cause of death among Americans is traffic accidents.
"Likewise, not counting hurricanes, America would not have so many natural disasters. Not counting divorces, America would have more intact families. Not counting wars, America would have a smaller public debt. But what's the point of this exercise? The people who make up America count as Americans, and their problems count as America's problems. Their problems do not occur in isolation, but are manifestations of failures to which all Americans contributed together."
Like you said, it's an opinion piece. I think it's a failure of logic. Suicides are not a gun issue just like divorce isn't a wedding ring issue.
I see a lot of failures of logic in all your arguments for guns. You refuse to look at worldwide statistics about how the amount of guns correlates to the amount of gun deaths. You refuse to see anything as a gun issue; it's a black gang issue, or a mental health issue, or a liberal loony issue, or anything but the obvious elephant in the room, which is the proliferation of guns.
You simply ignore statistics that show suicides could be reduced if there were fewer guns; mass shootings could be reduced, murders, accidental shootings, school shootings, etc. etc. etc. Instead you make a "logical" statement about divorce not being a wedding ring issue.
All the people from countries other than ours who can't understand why we have so many guns can now see the thinking process many Americans are simply amazed by. So thanks for sharing that.
I look at the worldwide statistics. I just don't care about them. My right to self-defense is more important than preventing suicide by gun or anything else you bring up. I don't want to live in a country that gives a burglar more rights than a homeowner. They can be amazed, confused, disappointed or whatever they want. I just don't care what you or they think. I'm exhausted by people who live in New York and San Francisco telling me how I should live, when they live in some weird bubble that is totally divorced from reality.
A free society doesn't remove basic civil rights from all people because a few choose to abuse those rights.
If we follow your suicide theory to its logical conclusion, then we should ban everything that makes it easier for people to kill themselves. We should ban snack foods, tobacco, alcohol, sugary drinks and cars just for starters. At what point would it be enough? How many people do we have to save from themselves?
Well, you've reached the point of complete ridiculousness. But thanks for admitting you don't care about evidence; that pretty much sums it up.
You may be tired of the majority of Americans "telling you what to do", but you know what we're tired of? The minority of you putting the rest of us at higher risk of death because of your irrational love of guns. So excuse us for being pretty disgusted with you.
Except you're not in the majority. You want an outright ban on all guns. That's a very minority view. Like I said, you're stuck in a bubble and incapable of seeing outside of it.
-
I look at the worldwide statistics. I just don't care about them. My right to self-defense is more important than preventing suicide by gun or anything else you bring up.
I guess murderers where you live must be far more polite than ours, waiting for you to go and fetch your gun for a 'fair fight'.
Or do you literally have your gun in your hand or on your hip at all times, and never go to sleep?
Who defends school kids? Do your teachers work with their guns in their hands ready to shoot?
Your argument is illogical. Unless the above are all true.
Why do you think your "right to self-defence" is more important than protecting kids in school?
I can get to my guns a lot faster than the police can get to my house to save me and mine.
There are other ways to protect kids in schools besides banning all guns. We could put full-time police officers in every school, control access and formulate safety plans. If having full-time armed security is good enough for our president, why isn't it good enough for our school kids?
Why do you think I should lose my civil rights because someone else abuses theirs? Why should I be punished for obeying the law just because someone else chooses to break it?
-
"I don't want to live in a country that gives a burglar more rights than a homeowner. "
Which country is that then?
-
since i joined the Internet around 15 years ago I have been in maybe 20 of these discussions. School shootings and the right to bear arms..
Its a hopeless discussion. The Americans are totally brainwashed, and cannot see any argument, neither statistic nor logical.
Its all about guns and manlyhood. It could be a hormone phenomena.
-
We could put full-time police officers in every school...
Tell that to the budget-chopping, tight-wad GOPers in our Congress who won't spend a nickel to rebuild our crumbling bridges and roads and have voted 50+ times to repeal "Obamacare" (which commits the unforgivable sin of giving low-income Americans a chance at decent health care).
Wonder how much it would cost to put full-time police officers in every single school in our far-flung 50 states. Will you, Rob, pledge to lobby personally your congressmen and senators to fund that immense expense???
If having full-time armed security is good enough for our president, why isn't it good enough for our school kids?
Hmmm. Interesting question. I guess my answer would be that there are several million more school kids than there are presidents of the United States.
See my question (above) about getting the GOP to pay for full-time armed security for **all** America's kids, not just those privileged to live in "safe" communities.
-
Where I live, about 50% of property taxes go to pay for education. Our residents voted down the new school budget, which would repair our crumbling elementary school and add two much-needed classrooms, because it would require raising property taxes by about $20 per household. Imagine telling residents we needed a half million dollars more per year to pay for armed police officers at every school. And how many would you actually need? After all, the school is used by kids outside of regular school hours. They host all kinds of sports teams. You'd need cops for all those activities, too. So you're looking at multiple cops working a variety of shifts at each school. And in my particular town, we don't even have a local police force...the state police barracks are located in town, and they answer our calls.
It just makes more sense to disarm people. The rest of the world sees that.
-
Why do you think I should lose my civil rights because someone else abuses theirs?
I can't answer that question because 'owning a gun' is not a right I perceive.
We have murders here, and when I read about the ones where the victim/s are unknown to the perpetrators, I very seldom (actually I can't think of any, but I could have forgotten) think, "If only the victim had had a gun, they'd still be alive".
-
..........
There are other ways to protect kids in schools besides banning all guns. We could put full-time police officers in every school, control access and formulate safety plans. If having full-time armed security is good enough for our president, why isn't it good enough for our school kids?......
I agree, that is why those lobbying for guns are also super into big government, the nanny state and 90% taxation that would be necessary for this safety planning and constant supervision of their children by government armed troops, sorry security guards.
-
"Why do you think I should lose my civil rights because someone else abuses theirs?"
Cos my right to walk down the street as safely as practicable without risking some maniac blowing my head off outweighs your right to sit at home polishing your gun collection?
-
I know there is no point debating this issue. The divide is so big that perspective is lost.
But let me say one thing. There is no correlation between guns and gun deaths, unless you cook the data. And for what I read of the discussion, both sides seem to not like the other side cooking statistics. But the thing is that raw data shows no correlation.
Let me show an example:
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/03/the-correlation-between-guns-and-homicide-rate.html (http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/03/the-correlation-between-guns-and-homicide-rate.html)
There is a step missing in the article, removing US from the data for the same reasons as South Africa. After that step it will show there is no correlation in developed countries at all.
Lies, * Lies and Statistics.
Society, culture, hatred, racial issues, poverty, mental health. Any of those factors is more directly correlated to gun deaths than guns per capita.
Guns per capita is related to gun deaths as weight scales per capita are related to obesity.
I think that because it seems impossible to remove millions of guns from the streets, then maybe schools should train kids to deal with school shootings instead. Just like fire exercises, earthquakes, storms. If school shootings are an increasing issue, let's be prepared.
-
I don't get it...you linked to an article that showed there IS a clear correlation and recommended adopting gun laws like those of countries similar to ours.
-
I don't get it...you linked to an article that showed there IS a clear correlation and recommended adopting gun laws like those of countries similar to ours.
To reach that conclusion, the article removes South Africa for the following reasons:
Again, no correlation. But, notice the outlier, South Africa. That is a country with a history of apartheid, ethnic conflict and violence. It is obviously skewing the results. So, what happens if we eliminate South Africa from the analysis?
Tell me what happens if you apply the same criteria to US, remove it for a history of ethnic conflict and violence.
The data clearly shows US is an outlier in the data just like South Africa and if you remove it, the rest of developed countries shows there is no correlation.
That's cooking the data to get the result you want. Cherry picking.
Edit: Or to put it in a different way. Don't you notice that to reach that conclusion, the author of the article ended up removing all countries with a 'Homicide by Firearm' rate higher than the US?
-
When was slavery legal in the U.S.? When was apartheid legal in South Africa?
-
When was slavery legal in the U.S.? When was apartheid legal in South Africa?
If you are going to deny there has been a history of racial issues and violence in the US, there is not much more to talk.
Still, notice the other thing I pointed out about the author removing all countries with a higher gun murder ratio.
The thing is, in this data if only developed countries are considered, both US and South Africa are anomalies.
So, I ask you again, if you remove the US from the data, what correlation do you see?
- All world countries, no correlation.
- All developed countries, no correlation.
- Developed countries excl. South Africa, magic! Correlation!!
- Developed countries excl. South Africa and US...... no correlation.
Do you see a pattern?
-
So maybe its just Americans that shouldn't be trusted with guns?
-
When was slavery legal in the U.S.? When was apartheid legal in South Africa?
If you are going to deny there has been a history of racial issues and violence in the US, there is not much more to talk.
Still, notice the other thing I pointed out about the author removing all countries with a higher gun murder ratio.
The thing is, in this data if only developed countries are considered, both US and South Africa are anomalies.
So, I ask you again, if you remove the US from the data, what correlation do you see?
- All world countries, no correlation.
- All developed countries, no correlation.
- Developed countries excl. South Africa, magic! Correlation!!
- Developed countries excl. South Africa and US...... no correlation.
Do you see a pattern?
So the logical conclusion from what you post is that RSA and USA specifically should ban firearms.
-
When was slavery legal in the U.S.? When was apartheid legal in South Africa?
If you are going to deny there has been a history of racial issues and violence in the US, there is not much more to talk.
Still, notice the other thing I pointed out about the author removing all countries with a higher gun murder ratio.
The thing is, in this data if only developed countries are considered, both US and South Africa are anomalies.
So, I ask you again, if you remove the US from the data, what correlation do you see?
- All world countries, no correlation.
- All developed countries, no correlation.
- Developed countries excl. South Africa, magic! Correlation!!
- Developed countries excl. South Africa and US...... no correlation.
Do you see a pattern?
So the logical conclusion from what you post is that RSA and USA specifically should ban firearms.
Or maybe RSA and US should change their culture, society, poverty rates, racial issues, hatred, violence.
Banning guns will solve gun murder rates just like banning weight scales will solve obesity.
-
Or maybe RSA and US should change their culture, society, poverty rates, racial issues, hatred, violence.
Banning guns will solve gun murder rates just like banning weight scales will solve obesity.
We have issues of inequality and poverty - worse now than for a long time - but the banning of guns was a very positive move. It is such a tiny minority who disagrees (presumably there are some) that I haven't read the arguments. (I haven't looked for them, but the US pro-gun lobby seems unavoidable.)
-
We have issues of inequality and poverty - worse now than for a long time - but the banning of guns was a very positive move. It is such a tiny minority who disagrees (presumably there are some) that I haven't read the arguments. (I haven't looked for them, but the US pro-gun lobby seems unavoidable.)
Well, I am not pro-gun and I am not from the US but I am very anti-'statistics manipulation' and the only thing I can say is that there is no correlation in raw data. The real issue is somewhere else. Banning guns will have the same effect as banning alcohol or banning drugs.
Once banned, will US law enforcement start a War on Guns campaign? I am eager to see how it goes... ::)
-
From where I'm sitting, if I look at it sensibly, I could get murdered in my own home or small town, but the likelihood is small.
Terrorists could attack my small rural town, but the likelihood is small.
However, like most people, I go out and about to cities and travel abroad, where the risk of being killed by terrorists is greater, and a gun would be of little use in most of these scenarios.
Even when I read about random people (meaning unknown in any way to the perpetrator) being shot or stabbed in cities here, it usually happens so quickly that they couldn't defend themselves (didn't know it was about to happen until it happened).
That many Americans feel that being murdered in their own home or even small, rural town is an indicator that the 'right' to own firearms is not helpful.
-
From where I'm sitting, if I look at it sensibly, I could get murdered in my own home or small town, but the likelihood is small.
Terrorists could attack my small rural town, but the likelihood is small.
However, like most people, I go out and about to cities and travel abroad, where the risk of being killed by terrorists is greater, and a gun would be of little use in most of these scenarios.
Even when I read about random people (meaning unknown in any way to the perpetrator) being shot or stabbed in cities here, it usually happens so quickly that they couldn't defend themselves (didn't know it was about to happen until it happened).
That many Americans feel that being murdered in their own home or even small, rural town is an indicator that the 'right' to own firearms is not helpful.
I will tell you something, you are completely right.
The no correlation goes both ways. Banning guns has the same effect as legalizing them. No correlation.
-
I agree, that is why those lobbying for guns are also super into big government, the nanny state and 90% taxation that would be necessary for this safety planning ...
Ummm. Don't you think you've got that backwards?
Those "lobbying for guns" are not the ones "super into big government, the nanny state and 90% taxation." They're much more likely to be the wild-west, shoot-'em-up, stand yer ground types who just want to get "gummint" out of their lives and keep the "gummint's filthy hands off my Medicare."
Those "lobbying for gun control" are more likely to appreciate a stronger government role in keeping us all safe.
-
Once banned, will US law enforcement start a War on Guns campaign? I am eager to see how it goes... ::)
Prepare to wait a long, long time, because a) there is no "War on Guns" campaign in the US and b) even if there were, a total ban on guns would not likely happen in my lifetime or yours.
-
From where I'm sitting, if I look at it sensibly, I could get murdered in my own home or small town, but the likelihood is small.
Terrorists could attack my small rural town, but the likelihood is small.
However, like most people, I go out and about to cities and travel abroad, where the risk of being killed by terrorists is greater, and a gun would be of little use in most of these scenarios.
Even when I read about random people (meaning unknown in any way to the perpetrator) being shot or stabbed in cities here, it usually happens so quickly that they couldn't defend themselves (didn't know it was about to happen until it happened).
That many Americans feel that being murdered in their own home or even small, rural town is an indicator that the 'right' to own firearms is not helpful.
I will tell you something, you are completely right.
The no correlation goes both ways. Banning guns has the same effect as legalizing them. No correlation.
I don't believe that for one minute.
But even if it were true, then just ban them. What's the point?
-
In the american fear producing campaign.
for your amusement:
http://theshrug.com/shes-too-busy-texting-on-her-phone-to-notice-something-terrifying-until-its-too-late/ (http://theshrug.com/shes-too-busy-texting-on-her-phone-to-notice-something-terrifying-until-its-too-late/)
-
From where I'm sitting, if I look at it sensibly, I could get murdered in my own home or small town, but the likelihood is small.
Terrorists could attack my small rural town, but the likelihood is small.
However, like most people, I go out and about to cities and travel abroad, where the risk of being killed by terrorists is greater, and a gun would be of little use in most of these scenarios.
Even when I read about random people (meaning unknown in any way to the perpetrator) being shot or stabbed in cities here, it usually happens so quickly that they couldn't defend themselves (didn't know it was about to happen until it happened).
That many Americans feel that being murdered in their own home or even small, rural town is an indicator that the 'right' to own firearms is not helpful.
I will tell you something, you are completely right.
The no correlation goes both ways. Banning guns has the same effect as legalizing them. No correlation.
I don't believe that for one minute.
But even if it were true, then just ban them. What's the point?
You are free to believe what you want. Data says otherwise.
But I believe you are correct in that the right to own firearms is not helpful against fear of being murdered. Fear of being murdered is related to the perceived threat, not to gun ownership.
The real reason is something else as is proven by data showing gun ownership to be unrelated to gun deaths.
Teaching kids to fear neighbors, strangers, people of different races, whatever, will have much more impact in future gun murders than giving each kid a gun.
-
Outsiders fail to appreciate how deeply ingrained the Civil War is into the American psyche to this day. And here we have, at the extreme ends of the argument for and against, two groups of people who are in fear for their lives and their culture. Not good.
On the one side a section of society that believes without guns they are at the mercy of criminals and state. At the other end are people who attribute the annual slaughter to the proliferation of weapons. Neither can agree and in between are all those people who might be able to find common ground but are in fear of the consequences if those two extremes start taking action against each other. Incidents like Waco demonstrate how badly that can go.
A cultural shift of the scale required to reach a compromise is beyond the ambit of a single political party in power and until it becomes an election issue will probably remain so.
-
When was slavery legal in the U.S.? When was apartheid legal in South Africa?
If you are going to deny there has been a history of racial issues and violence in the US, there is not much more to talk.
Still, notice the other thing I pointed out about the author removing all countries with a higher gun murder ratio.
The thing is, in this data if only developed countries are considered, both US and South Africa are anomalies.
So, I ask you again, if you remove the US from the data, what correlation do you see?
- All world countries, no correlation.
- All developed countries, no correlation.
- Developed countries excl. South Africa, magic! Correlation!!
- Developed countries excl. South Africa and US...... no correlation.
Do you see a pattern?
The whole world sees a very obvious pattern, but a very small number of gun owners in the U.S. shut their eyes and refuse to see. We have only 5% of the world's population and only a minority own guns. So very few of you, relatively speaking, refuse to see reality.
-
Outsiders fail to appreciate how deeply ingrained the Civil War is into the American psyche to this day. And here we have, at the extreme ends of the argument for and against, two groups of people who are in fear for their lives and their culture. Not good.
On the one side a section of society that believes without guns they are at the mercy of criminals and state. At the other end are people who attribute the annual slaughter to the proliferation of weapons. Neither can agree and in between are all those people who might be able to find common ground but are in fear of the consequences if those two extremes start taking action against each other. Incidents like Waco demonstrate how badly that can go.
A cultural shift of the scale required to reach a compromise is beyond the ambit of a single political party in power and until it becomes an election issue will probably remain so.
Here's the difference between the two extremes. People who call for stricter gun regulations take action by trying to pass laws, and gun owners would "take action" (if your scenanrio comes to pass) by shooting and killing people.
A cultural shift is not necessary, but a good media campaign is, something that will shift public opinion as we did with drunk driving. Also, time is on our side. Because believe it or not, gun ownership is declining in the U.S. and has been for decades. That's the reason the NRA and gun manufacturers are acting so aggressively. Their customer base is shrinking, so they need to convince their existing customers that they need a lot more guns by scaring the bejesus out of them. So far their marketing, combined with their political power, is working very well.
-
I agree, that is why those lobbying for guns are also super into big government, the nanny state and 90% taxation that would be necessary for this safety planning ...
Ummm. Don't you think you've got that backwards?
Those "lobbying for guns" are not the ones "super into big government, the nanny state and 90% taxation." They're much more likely to be the wild-west, shoot-'em-up, stand yer ground types who just want to get "gummint" out of their lives and keep the "gummint's filthy hands off my Medicare."
Those "lobbying for gun control" are more likely to appreciate a stronger government role in keeping us all safe.
lol, I couldn't find the sarcasm punctuation mark on my keyboard. I should have ended it with a "NOT" or at least a "yeah right"
-
I was going to mention the war but then thought better of it ;)
I think if a Martian looked at American attutudes/ politics that would be the thing that would seem to color every aspect of every major debate in the US.
The civil war is so relatively recent in historical terms I think half the country sees the federal goverment as something they have a stake in and are represented by and the other half view it as an occupying force. All the debates over state rights seem to have poignancy because of this. It is trying to limit the power of an occupying force over the remenance of the defeated side. Attitudes to race seem to be fuelled largely by the same thing. It was such a brutal war I wonder if it can ever be laid to rest
-
Interesting article in the Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/11/mass-shooting-florida-1000th-sandy-hook (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/11/mass-shooting-florida-1000th-sandy-hook)
-
I agree, that is why those lobbying for guns are also super into big government, the nanny state and 90% taxation that would be necessary for this safety planning ...
Ummm. Don't you think you've got that backwards?
Those "lobbying for guns" are not the ones "super into big government, the nanny state and 90% taxation." They're much more likely to be the wild-west, shoot-'em-up, stand yer ground types who just want to get "gummint" out of their lives and keep the "gummint's filthy hands off my Medicare."
Those "lobbying for gun control" are more likely to appreciate a stronger government role in keeping us all safe.
lol, I couldn't find the sarcasm punctuation mark on my keyboard. I should have ended it with a "NOT" or at least a "yeah right"
Well, since you really and truly don't have a sarcasm punctuation mark on your keyboard, perhaps you need to work on your writing style so readers understand the "cleverness" behind what you're saying. Readers don't tend to be mind readers, and good writers know that.
Besides, there are a lot of non-US readers of this forum who probably don't have a clue which side of the gun debate is supportive of the "nanny state" and which side is not. Your mangled attempt at "sarcasm" didn't do much to inform them, I'm sure.
-
I think most people know enough about US politics to know that those proposing armed security in schools as a solution to shootings in schools would be the last to be prepared to fund it with their tax dollars or allow that kind of government oversite of their children. Mangled sarcasm was all that it deserved.
-
..........
There are other ways to protect kids in schools besides banning all guns. We could put full-time police officers in every school, control access and formulate safety plans. If having full-time armed security is good enough for our president, why isn't it good enough for our school kids?......
I agree, that is why those lobbying for guns are also super into big government, the nanny state and 90% taxation that would be necessary for this safety planning and constant supervision of their children by government armed troops, sorry security guards.
Sorry. That's crap. A lot of schools already have school resource officers, and they are trained police officers. If safety is important, then we should make schools safer with police protection. Banning guns won't do that.
-
..........
There are other ways to protect kids in schools besides banning all guns. We could put full-time police officers in every school, control access and formulate safety plans. If having full-time armed security is good enough for our president, why isn't it good enough for our school kids?......
I agree, that is why those lobbying for guns are also super into big government, the nanny state and 90% taxation that would be necessary for this safety planning and constant supervision of their children by government armed troops, sorry security guards.
Sorry. That's crap. A lot of schools already have school resource officers, and they are trained police officers. If safety is important, then we should make schools safer. Banning guns won't do that.
Oh I think it would! Do you actually have any evidence that having guns in schools make them safer - at best it seems somewhat counter intuitive or as you might say crap :-\
-
Does having guns in the White House with the president make him safer?
-
..........
There are other ways to protect kids in schools besides banning all guns. We could put full-time police officers in every school, control access and formulate safety plans. If having full-time armed security is good enough for our president, why isn't it good enough for our school kids?......
I agree, that is why those lobbying for guns are also super into big government, the nanny state and 90% taxation that would be necessary for this safety planning and constant supervision of their children by government armed troops, sorry security guards.
Sorry. That's crap. A lot of schools already have school resource officers, and they are trained police officers. If safety is important, then we should make schools safer. Banning guns won't do that.
Oh I think it would! Do you actually have any evidence that having guns in schools make them safer - at best it seems somewhat counter intuitive or as you might say crap :-\
Guns are already banned in schools, aren't they?
-
Does having guns in the White House with the president make him safer?
Depends, I suppose, on who it is that's packin' the heat in the White House.
-
This is the prohibited list for visitors to the Whitehouse
Prohibited Items
Prohibited items include, but are not limited to, the following:
Video Recorders
Handbags, book bags, backpacks or purses
Food or beverages, tobacco products, personal grooming items (i.e. makeup, lotion, etc.)
Strollers
Any pointed objects
Aerosol containers
Guns, ammunition, fireworks, electric stun guns, mace, martial arts weapons/devices, or knives of any size
-
This is the prohibited list for visitors to the Whitehouse
Prohibited Items
Prohibited items include, but are not limited to, the following:
Video Recorders
Handbags, book bags, backpacks or purses
Food or beverages, tobacco products, personal grooming items (i.e. makeup, lotion, etc.)
Strollers
Any pointed objects
Aerosol containers
Guns, ammunition, fireworks, electric stun guns, mace, martial arts weapons/devices, or knives of any size
Would it make the President safer to allow more guns in the whitehouse?
-
Does having guns in the White House with the president make him safer?
Yay! Perfect. You've hit nail on the head. Is anyone in the White House allowed guns other than the people guarding the president? Why do you think that is? Wouldn't he be safer if everyone was armed? Well obviously not. It sounds rediculous. If it's good enough for the president, why not your children (as you are fond of saying)
-
..........
There are other ways to protect kids in schools besides banning all guns. We could put full-time police officers in every school, control access and formulate safety plans. If having full-time armed security is good enough for our president, why isn't it good enough for our school kids?......
I agree, that is why those lobbying for guns are also super into big government, the nanny state and 90% taxation that would be necessary for this safety planning and constant supervision of their children by government armed troops, sorry security guards.
Sorry. That's crap. A lot of schools already have school resource officers, and they are trained police officers. If safety is important, then we should make schools safer with police protection. Banning guns won't do that.
I live in a rural Texas town and my kids have always had police officers at their schools. They have graduated now but from when they first started school in 1999 and until the last one graduated in 2014 there have been police officers present.
I grew up with handguns, rifles, and shotguns and was taught how to handle those guns with respect. I have taught my kids the same as they grew up. I believe there needs to be some changes in requirements to own a gun. I have seen many go through training to carry a weapon that had no business having a weapon. They would either hurt themselves or it would do them no good in the case for self-defense. Proper training is a necessity and if you are not willing to invest in in-depth training you should not be allowed to carry.
On the other hand there are sports that my family has been involved in such as sporting clay's. My wife, son, daughter, and I enjoy shotgun sports as well as my son and I love hunting.
I think there a lot of people here in the US that feel if you start restricting or regulating guns then that is the first step to taking them away completely. There is definitely the crowd that has that in their sites and would ban guns completely if they could. That is where you get the two sides that can't seem to come to common ground.
I think there are too many variables in the statistics to come to a conclusion. That is why both sides are able to see it differently. If the statistics were conclusive one way or the other it would be indisputable.
just my thoughts..... :)
-
The evidence is clear; gun owners just don't want to see it. Half a million guns are stolen from private owners in the U.S. every year. That's where "criminals" get them.
The right of people to live safer lives outweighs your right to enjoy hunting and clay shooting if it means every nutcase has easy access to a gun.
And I can't tell you how sad I find it that your kids' school had armed police officers. What a way to spend your childhood.
-
Get a load of this statistic: The US makes up about 4.4 percent of the global population, but owns 42 percent of the world’s civilian-owned guns. Mind-boggling.
-
The evidence is clear; gun owners just don't want to see it. Half a million guns are stolen from private owners in the U.S. every year. That's where "criminals" get them.
Criminals have no trouble breaking the law and getting guns in countries with restrictive gun laws.
And that 'half million' number is made up, from a 'survey'.
Get a load of this statistic: The US makes up about 4.4 percent of the global population, but owns 42 percent of the world’s civilian-owned guns. Mind-boggling.
Ok. 4.4% of world population. 42% of civilian guns.
Now tell me the % of gun deaths worldwide. Given that it has 42% of the guns, it should have 42% of the deaths, right? Otherwise the data shows that despite the huge amount of guns, the death rate is lower than other countries with less guns.
-
1/3 of American households report owning a gun. That means about 1.5% of the world's population owns 42% of the guns. What the heck are you so afraid of? Surely you can't be afraid of the rest of us...we don't own any guns. I wish our country would wake up and join the rest of the civilized world. Well, 1/3 of our country, anyway.
-
The evidence is clear; gun owners just don't want to see it. Half a million guns are stolen from private owners in the U.S. every year. That's where "criminals" get them.
The right of people to live safer lives outweighs your right to enjoy hunting and clay shooting if it means every nutcase has easy access to a gun.
And I can't tell you how sad I find it that your kids' school had armed police officers. What a way to spend your childhood.
It is not sad at all. My kids got to know the police and the police got to know the kids. That is where respect starts, at an early age. And you do not have to be sad for my kids, they have grown up to be just fine and not scarred for life. One is a commercial helicopter pilot that wants to work as a rescue or medical pilot when he has the experience. The other is training to be a registered nurse and volunteers at a large hospital. So they grew up and want to help others.
I can pretty much travel almost anywhere in the US and feel safe. It is people who keep saying, I have the right to feel safe that bothers me because you are safe in 95% of the places in the US.
-
1/3 of American households report owning a gun. That means about 1.5% of the world's population owns 42% of the guns. What the heck are you so afraid of? Surely you can't be afraid of the rest of us...we don't own any guns. I wish our country would wake up and join the rest of the civilized world. Well, 1/3 of our country, anyway.
You didn't answer the question. With such firepower in their hands, how much % of world's gun deaths does this 42% guns account?
You are amazed that 1.5% of world's population owns 42% of the guns but you are not amazed that the same people with 42% of the guns does not account for 42% of gun murders?
-
You are amazed that 1.5% of world's population owns 42% of the guns but you are not amazed that the same people with 42% of the guns does not account for 42% of gun murders?
I would suspect that most places in the world that have enormous rates of gun murders are also in the middle of some sort of civil war or are battling some form of organized terrorism. Unfortunately for them.
Fortunately for those of us who live in the US, we are not in the middle of a civil war, yet we *do* have a tremendous number of murders by gun each year.
How do you explain that in a nation supposedly at peace?
-
1/3 of American households report owning a gun. That means about 1.5% of the world's population owns 42% of the guns. What the heck are you so afraid of? Surely you can't be afraid of the rest of us...we don't own any guns. I wish our country would wake up and join the rest of the civilized world. Well, 1/3 of our country, anyway.
You didn't answer the question. With such firepower in their hands, how much % of world's gun deaths does this 42% guns account?
You are amazed that 1.5% of world's population owns 42% of the guns but you are not amazed that the same people with 42% of the guns does not account for 42% of gun murders?
No, of course I'm not amazed. Actually, if you take it further and apply the 20/80 rule, 20% of gun owners in the U.S. would own 80% of the guns in the U.S., or about 1/3 of all the civilian-owned guns in the world. That's about a half percent of the world's population owning 33% of the guns. That's absolutely pathological.
So when pro-gun Americans say it's a mental health issue, maybe that's what they mean?
-
You are amazed that 1.5% of world's population owns 42% of the guns but you are not amazed that the same people with 42% of the guns does not account for 42% of gun murders?
I would suspect that most places in the world that have enormous rates of gun murders are also in the middle of some sort of civil war or are battling some form of organized terrorism. Unfortunately for them.
Fortunately for those of us who live in the US, we are not in the middle of a civil war, yet we *do* have a tremendous number of murders by gun each year.
How do you explain that in a nation supposedly at peace?
Culture, society, racial issues, inequality, poverty, drugs.
Lots of factors influence this much more than "SO MANY GUNS!!!".
-
No, of course I'm not amazed. Actually, if you take it further and apply the 20/80 rule, 20% of gun owners in the U.S. would own 80% of the guns in the U.S., or about 1/3 of all the civilian-owned guns in the world. That's about a half percent of the world's population owning 33% of the guns. That's absolutely pathological.
So when pro-gun Americans say it's a mental health issue, maybe that's what they mean?
You are just making up numbers... sad.
-
No, I'm now convinced it's really a mental health issue. There's a tiny subsegment of the world's population concentrated in the U.S. who are so paranoid they feel compelled to arm themselves with huge arsenals of guns.
Now I say sure, background checks are good, but the main thing that would reduce the proliferation of guns in the U.S. is to impose a strict limit on the number of guns per household. This would affect only about 7% of the U.S. population. Makes sense.
-
I get it, you are afraid of guns, you don't like guns and you want to ban them. You are making up numbers to have more arguments to support your belief.
You think you will feel safer if there were less guns.
I feel safer when everyone in the community I live can thrive, people have jobs, parents can feed the kids, people treat each other with respect on the street.
If you really cared about the deaths you would be looking at the real issues like poverty, inequality, education or racial issues. Instead of blaming just guns.
It's in front of everyone to see, even the anti-gun people making up numbers know poverty influences gun murder rate more than amount of guns, that's the reason they remove developing/poor countries from stats.
-
I'm really excited about this. It could be a good way in. If a law restricting the number of guns per household only affected 7% of the U.S. population, 93% would remain unaffected and probably wouldn't be "up in arms" about it.
That's a much easier sell than any law that would affect all gun owners, since they make up much more of the population.
Ha! I'm sharing with my anti-gun ad peeps. Yippee!
-
Culture, society, racial issues, inequality, poverty, drugs.
Lots of factors influence this much more than "SO MANY GUNS!!!".
Well, let's compare:
SCENARIO A: Culture, society, racial issues, inequality, poverty, drugs, and so many guns.
SCENARIO B: Culture, society, racial issues, inequality, poverty, drugs, and many fewer guns.
Which scenario is most likely to lead to a safer society for all?
-
What amazes me is that someone can put a positive spin on having armed police in a school.
-
Culture, society, racial issues, inequality, poverty, drugs.
Lots of factors influence this much more than "SO MANY GUNS!!!".
Well, let's compare:
SCENARIO A: Culture, society, racial issues, inequality, poverty, drugs, and so many guns.
SCENARIO B: Culture, society, racial issues, inequality, poverty, drugs, and many fewer guns.
Which scenario is most likely to lead to a safer society for all?
The data already answers that question. No correlation between amount of guns and gun deaths. Safety will depend mainly on Culture, society, racial issues, inequality, poverty, drugs.
Do you have in mind two similar countries that fit your question scenario to compare?
-
This shows flaws on both sides in thinking about guns and statistics. This was a study by the CDC and commisioned by Obama. Some facts that dispute anti-gun myths which backfired on Obama as well as show there needs to be some control and tight regulation.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html)
-
What amazes me is that someone can put a positive spin on having armed police in a school.
I do not see how it is anything but positive. I guess if someone lives in a utopian world it might been seen as bad. You can have armed police in cars, on the streets, in mall's, in banks, in some government buildings, at events, etc., but then at schools it is bad?
I see police officers as protecting society and that is a good thing. Cops are at schools not just because of guns and I would say all the years my kids were in school they were absolutely not there in case of shootings. They were there to help with traffic, other violence such as fights, a friendly face to the kids, or maybe rare parents/kid custody issues. Whatever they were needed for.
-
It is NOT a posive thing if schoolchildren have to be guarded by police when they are in school.
They should be allowed to play and they should feel safe all the time.
-
What amazes me is that someone can put a positive spin on having armed police in a school.
I do not see how it is anything but positive. I guess if someone lives in a utopian world it might been seen as bad. You can have armed police in cars, on the streets, in mall's, in banks, in some government buildings, at events, etc., but then at schools it is bad?
I see police officers as protecting society and that is a good thing. Cops are at schools not just because of guns and I would say all the years my kids were in school they were absolutely not there in case of shootings. They were there to help with traffic, other violence such as fights, a friendly face to the kids, or maybe rare parents/kid custody issues. Whatever they were needed for.
Is the rest of the world utopia, or is your part of the world dystopia?
-
It is NOT a posive thing if schoolchildren have to be guarded by police when they are in school.
They should be allowed to play and they should feel safe all the time.
Who said they were not able to play or feel safe? My kids were able to play. They did not feel afraid. When the police were not there, they did feel safe. So what is the big deal?
-
You are amazed that 1.5% of world's population owns 42% of the guns but you are not amazed that the same people with 42% of the guns does not account for 42% of gun murders?
I would suspect that most places in the world that have enormous rates of gun murders are also in the middle of some sort of civil war or are battling some form of organized terrorism. Unfortunately for them.
Fortunately for those of us who live in the US, we are not in the middle of a civil war, yet we *do* have a tremendous number of murders by gun each year.
How do you explain that in a nation supposedly at peace?
Culture, society, racial issues, inequality, poverty, drugs.
Lots of factors influence this much more than "SO MANY GUNS!!!".
Thank you for adding rational dialog to the discussion Fujiko, Thank you for bringing up some excellent points throughout this thread and trying to stick to facts. With all sides skewing information it is difficult to determine where reality lies.
I think you are spot on that the problems are social, there are many problems that contribute to the issue and you mentioned a few.
Someone mentioned earlier in the discussion that Americans gun ownership has gone down, yet America violence in the schools has escalated to historic rates. Americas value system has changed in recent years and you can see this reflected in its TV programming and cultural norms. How can America expect it's youth to have good values and mental health when they limit access to mental health care and provide them with Television programming like Hannibal, Breaking Bad etc.
If we want to reduce violence in society we need to address the social issues you mentioned and more. As it stands we are talking about using bandaid measures to treat large societal cancers. The wounds are so large the bandaid measures will not squelch the bleeding.
No idea how accurate the following information is, however this is the type of information needed to start the healing process. That and dedicated funds and motivated citizens resolved to solve the numerous social issues that propagate violence.
63% Of Mass Shootings carried out by mentally ill shooters
http://tinyurl.com/dxx6s9b (http://tinyurl.com/dxx6s9b)
Psychiatric hospital bed shortage by state
http://tinyurl.com/p5ze46y (http://tinyurl.com/p5ze46y)
-
'63% Of Mass Shootings carried out by mentally ill shooters'
Maybe its time to make sure they cant by a gun at the candy shop then. Why not take both measures instead of one? Treat patients, stop selling guns.
-
'63% Of Mass Shootings carried out by mentally ill shooters'
Maybe its time to make sure they cant by a gun at the candy shop then. Why not take both measures instead of one? Treat patients, stop selling guns.
+100
-
Does having guns in the White House with the president make him safer?
Yay! Perfect. You've hit nail on the head. Is anyone in the White House allowed guns other than the people guarding the president? Why do you think that is? Wouldn't he be safer if everyone was armed? Well obviously not. It sounds rediculous. If it's good enough for the president, why not your children (as you are fond of saying)
I you agree to pay for some armed Secret Service agents to guard my house, I will happily give up my guns.
-
'63% Of Mass Shootings carried out by mentally ill shooters'
Maybe its time to make sure they cant by a gun at the candy shop then. Why not take both measures instead of one? Treat patients, stop selling guns.
If only it were as simple as taking one or two measures. The problems that contribute to violence are numerous and expansive. America needs to be committed to making large and numerous changes.
For instance - how many people in the US, do you think there are, who are mentally ill and have never been diagnosed and never will be diagnosed? Even if they are identified and prevented from buying weapons, what leads you to believe they can not find other methods; such as the homemade bombs used in Boston or in Oklahoma City by timothy mcvey; who built a bomb that robbed 168 people of their lives and injured over 500 people!
I am not against preventing mentally ill people from buying guns, however I do not believe it will make much impact towards reducing violence and deaths. America has many social issues to tackle if they wish to turn back the clock on violence.
-
Does having guns in the White House with the president make him safer?
Yay! Perfect. You've hit nail on the head. Is anyone in the White House allowed guns other than the people guarding the president? Why do you think that is? Wouldn't he be safer if everyone was armed? Well obviously not. It sounds rediculous. If it's good enough for the president, why not your children (as you are fond of saying)
I you agree to pay for some armed Secret Service agents to guard my house, I will happily give up my guns.
I can't really imagine what it's like to live somewhere where those are the only two options that would make you feel safe in your own home.
-
'63% Of Mass Shootings carried out by mentally ill shooters'
Maybe its time to make sure they cant by a gun at the candy shop then. Why not take both measures instead of one? Treat patients, stop selling guns.
I think treating patients will do more to prevent guns deaths than stop selling guns.
In fact, as many people love to compare the US to other industrialized countries and blame guns as the problem, why not compare to those same industrialized countries and blame healthcare? Why is US so proud of having the most dysfunctional healthcare of all industrialized countries? The worst protection for jobless workers?
There are so many ways to go broke on the US that are prevented in the other industrialized countries.
Solving that would do more for the general well-being of the US than anything else, but instead the governments of the industrialized countries want to copy the dysfunctional US system, now that's something I fear and makes me feel less safe.
-
. never mind
-
The evidence is clear; gun owners just don't want to see it. Half a million guns are stolen from private owners in the U.S. every year. That's where "criminals" get them.
So there is a good chance you could be maimed or killed by the very weapon you bought to protect yourself in the first place.
My final thought on this matter: If you require access to and believe you may have to use a lethal weapon to protect your kin or your personal freedoms, then the belief you are living in a free country is illusory.
-
The evidence is clear; gun owners just don't want to see it. Half a million guns are stolen from private owners in the U.S. every year. That's where "criminals" get them.
So there is a good chance you could be maimed or killed by the very weapon you bought to protect yourself in the first place.
My final thought on this matter: If you require access to and believe you may have to use a lethal weapon to protect your kin or your personal freedoms, then the belief you are living in a free country is illusory.
Having a gun in the home increases risk two ways: It can be stolen and used against you or your neighbors; or it can remain unstolen, and you or someone else you know who has access to the gun can shoot you or someone you know, either accidentally (more toddlers than police officers are killed by guns in the U.S. each year) or purposely (argument, domestic violence, suicide).
-
You can't fix stupid. Seems like these kids that are going in and shooting up schools are getting the guns right from within their own homes. Their parents buy them, and in their infinite wisdom, don't bother to lock them up so the kids can't get a hold of them. Instead, they seem proud of their arsenal, and instill that pride in their children.
-
Even worse...these parents seem to know their children are disturbed, and somehow think getting them involved with guns and developing deadly shooting skills will help. Of all things...why guns? How about volunteering in a soup kitchen, or gardening, or drawing, or shooting PICTURES, or any other hobby than a deadly one that encourages them to express their rage by killing innocent victims?
-
You can't fix stupid. Seems like these kids that are going in and shooting up schools are getting the guns right from within their own homes. Their parents buy them, and in their infinite wisdom, don't bother to lock them up so the kids can't get a hold of them. Instead, they seem proud of their arsenal, and instill that pride in their children.
Here's a little video showing a few intelligent gun owners
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzTGlSp0oB8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzTGlSp0oB8)
-
With those arguments (child safety and stupidity) it makes more sense to ban swimming pools. Comparatively more dangerous than guns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWDkxMtHSaA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWDkxMtHSaA)
-
You can't fix stupid. Seems like these kids that are going in and shooting up schools are getting the guns right from within their own homes. Their parents buy them, and in their infinite wisdom, don't bother to lock them up so the kids can't get a hold of them. Instead, they seem proud of their arsenal, and instill that pride in their children.
Here's a little video showing a few intelligent gun owners
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzTGlSp0oB8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzTGlSp0oB8)
Yeah, a lot of those look staged, but the point is spot on. Do a search for "how many people shoot themselves every year" and you will get real statistics. I, in fact, have anecdotal evidence of my own. I had a friend who liked to shoot. He took me to the pistol range and we did some shooting a few times. And one time (I wasn't with him) my girlfriend (his wife) called me and said he had to go to the hospital. Seems he got out of his car, put his pistol down on the seat, where it promptly slid out, hit the ground and shot him in the leg. And since gunshot wounds need to be reported, a whole lot of paperwork was involved. How stupid did he feel? ::)
-
With those arguments (child safety and stupidity) it makes more sense to ban swimming pools. Comparatively more dangerous than guns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWDkxMtHSaA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWDkxMtHSaA)
This particular thread is about gun shootings, though. You can certainly start a new thread about stupid people with swimming pools who don't fence them in and don't watch their kids. :-)
-
With those arguments (child safety and stupidity) it makes more sense to ban swimming pools. Comparatively more dangerous than guns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWDkxMtHSaA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWDkxMtHSaA)
This particular thread is about gun shootings, though. You can certainly start a new thread about stupid people with swimming pools who don't fence them in and don't watch their kids. :-)
I know. But some arguments are laughable.
There is nothing wrong about disliking guns and wanting to ban them, but there is something wrong in some of the arguments used to support it.
-
With those arguments (child safety and stupidity) it makes more sense to ban swimming pools. Comparatively more dangerous than guns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWDkxMtHSaA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWDkxMtHSaA)
This particular thread is about gun shootings, though. You can certainly start a new thread about stupid people with swimming pools who don't fence them in and don't watch their kids. :-)
I know. But some arguments are laughable.
There is nothing wrong about disliking guns and wanting to ban them, but there is something wrong in some of the arguments used to support it.
I don't think any arguments about weapons that murder children, or anyone for that matter, are laughable. There are a whole lot of social ills contributing to the problem, and people who don't know how to properly handle firearms are one of those.
-
One question from someone who lives in a restricted guns country.
Where do you think the gun-nuts go when guns are restricted? Do you think they vanish?
No, they go to law enforcement and private security. ::)
Also, if you are so against guns? Why not demand a ban on gun production?
-
With those arguments (child safety and stupidity) it makes more sense to ban swimming pools. Comparatively more dangerous than guns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWDkxMtHSaA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWDkxMtHSaA)
3,000 people drown per year. 33,000 are killed by guns..11 times as many.
When you have nothng else, try to change the subject, I guess.
-
With those arguments (child safety and stupidity) it makes more sense to ban swimming pools. Comparatively more dangerous than guns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWDkxMtHSaA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWDkxMtHSaA)
3,000 people drown per year. 33,000 are killed by guns..11 times as many.
When you have nothng else, try to change the subject, I guess.
10 million pools.
Guess how many times more guns.
What is comparatively more dangerous.
-
But the net area of the pools is far more than the total area of the guns - absurd arguement
-
As Cathy said, if you're concerned about pools, start a thread about them. This is a thread about guns. Or if you like, we could regulate guns like we do pools. Pools require a four-foot fence with childproof self-latching gates, and must be inspected by the town before a certificate of occupancy can be procured. So you can't live in a house with a pool without child safety features passing inspection.
Requiring a self-locking childproof gun safe in every home with a gun, plus additional safety features on the gun itself, and passing a law requiring the gun and safe pass inspection before anyone can live in the house sounds good to me. Also, only one per house, like pools. Ok with you?
-
But the net area of the pools is far more than the total area of the guns - absurd arguement
Good one! You made me smile.
I will remind you that a gun can cover a much more grater area because it can be carried along while a pool is a static object. Thank god no one can carry pools to school.
As Cathy said, if you're concerned about pools, start a thread about them. This is a thread about guns. Or if you like, we could regulate guns like we do pools. Pools require a four-foot fence with childproof self-latching gates, and must be inspected by the town before a certificate of occupancy can be procured. So you can't live in a house with a pool without child safety features passing inspection.
Requiring a self-locking childproof gun safe in every home with a gun, plus additional safety features on the gun itself, and passing a law requiring the gun and safe pass inspection before anyone can live in the house sounds good to me. Also, only one per house, like pools. Ok with you?
So many pool requirements and they still kill more children in their homes than guns? Proof that laws and regulations will fix everything.
-
Laws and regulations will never fix everything, and will never prevent all deaths or accidents. However, laws and regulations can substantially reduce accidents and deaths, which is why new safety features, laws and regulations are introduced all the time, for pretty much everything you can think of...except guns.
-
Even worse...these parents seem to know their children are disturbed, and somehow think getting them involved with guns and developing deadly shooting skills will help. Of all things...why guns? How about volunteering in a soup kitchen, or gardening, or drawing, or shooting PICTURES, or any other hobby than a deadly one that encourages them to express their rage by killing innocent victims?
It is easy to make judgements when you are not living with someone with mental illness.
A Father's Story
http://www.greenburgercenter.org/article?ID=30 (http://www.greenburgercenter.org/article?ID=30)
And even harder to do what it takes to facilitate change.
Greenburger Center For Social and Criminal Justice - 8 Ways to Fix The System
http://www.greenburgercenter.org/mission#point2what (http://www.greenburgercenter.org/mission#point2what)
-
It is easy to make judgements when you are not living with someone with mental illness.
No one is making judgments against mental illness. Some of the people shooting up schools have mental illness issues. The question is, why would a home with a mentally challenged person have 1 gun, not locked up, let alone an arsenal of guns, not locked up?
Requiring a self-locking childproof gun safe in every home with a gun, plus additional safety features on the gun itself, and passing a law requiring the gun and safe pass inspection before anyone can live in the house sounds good to me. Also, only one per house, like pools. Ok with you?
There is a solution right there. But NRA lobbyists aren't even going to allow a plan like that to move forward.
-
It is easy to make judgements when you are not living with someone with mental illness.
No one is making judgments against mental illness. Some of the people shooting up schools have mental illness issues. The question is, why would a home with a mentally challenged person have 1 gun, not locked up, let alone an arsenal of guns, not locked up?
Requiring a self-locking childproof gun safe in every home with a gun, plus additional safety features on the gun itself, and passing a law requiring the gun and safe pass inspection before anyone can live in the house sounds good to me. Also, only one per house, like pools. Ok with you?
There is a solution right there. But NRA lobbyists aren't even going to allow a plan like that to move forward.
Do you think all parents with mentally ill children supply them with guns or for that matter have them in the home? I would say the vast majority are more in line with Mr Greenburg who was unable to get his child the help he needed. They try for years to help their children and are unable to do so.
I think many parents have tried to change the system, however Mr Greenburg has the means and fortitude to take it to a level most parents can not. Let us hope he can accomplish his goals.
Greenburger Center For Social and Criminal Justice - 8 Ways to Fix The System
http://www.greenburgercenter.org/mission#point2what (http://www.greenburgercenter.org/mission#point2what)
-
Brilliant.
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/general-news/20151013/charges-filed-against-woman-who-shot-at-fleeing-shoplifters-in-home-depot-parking-lot (http://www.theoaklandpress.com/general-news/20151013/charges-filed-against-woman-who-shot-at-fleeing-shoplifters-in-home-depot-parking-lot)
-
If the information is correct, I think she should get more than 90 days in jail. She could have easily killed someone.
"Duva-Rodriguez was arraigned in the early afternoon in Rochester Hills on the single charge of reckless use, handling or discharge of a firearm, a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail and/or a fine."
-
If the information is correct, I think she should get more than 90 days in jail. She could have easily killed someone.
"Duva-Rodriguez was arraigned in the early afternoon in Rochester Hills on the single charge of reckless use, handling or discharge of a firearm, a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail and/or a fine."
They should give her a medal. Maybe she could have killed the shoplifter or some robber who gets coddled and protected until they kill somebody else. Then we pay to keep them fed and warm until they go through the same cycle again. The crimninals have all the rights and sympathy and the law has to watch every word and step or is attacked. Start shooting shoplifters and carjackers and I bet they will start finding some other way to support their drug habits. A job would be one way?
No guns here, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/12/31/homemade-bomb-kills-4-wounds-at-least-30-at-southern-philippine-market/ (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/12/31/homemade-bomb-kills-4-wounds-at-least-30-at-southern-philippine-market/)
I don't own a rifle or pistol. I've only been robbed at knifepoint.
-
Does having guns in the White House with the president make him safer?
Yay! Perfect. You've hit nail on the head. Is anyone in the White House allowed guns other than the people guarding the president? Why do you think that is? Wouldn't he be safer if everyone was armed? Well obviously not. It sounds rediculous. If it's good enough for the president, why not your children (as you are fond of saying)
I you agree to pay for some armed Secret Service agents to guard my house, I will happily give up my guns.
I can't really imagine what it's like to live somewhere where those are the only two options that would make you feel safe in your own home.
Pretty sure violent criminals can attack anyone, anywhere. The question is whether you want to be a victim or not.
-
How many times have you been attacked so far?
-
If the information is correct, I think she should get more than 90 days in jail. She could have easily killed someone.
"Duva-Rodriguez was arraigned in the early afternoon in Rochester Hills on the single charge of reckless use, handling or discharge of a firearm, a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail and/or a fine."
They should give her a medal. Maybe she could have killed the shoplifter or some robber who gets coddled and protected until they kill somebody. The crimninals have all the rights and sympathy and the law has to watch every word and step or is attacked. Start shooting shoplifters and carjackers and I bet they will start finding some other way to support their drug habits. A job would be one way?
No guns here, [url]http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/12/31/homemade-bomb-kills-4-wounds-at-least-30-at-southern-philippine-market/[/url] ([url]http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/12/31/homemade-bomb-kills-4-wounds-at-least-30-at-southern-philippine-market/[/url])
I don't own a rifle or pistol.
Are you being facetious? I find it hard to believe you think death is an apt punishment for shoplifting or that you don't see that her actions were far more dangerous to the people there that day than shoplifting.
-
Does having guns in the White House with the president make him safer?
Yay! Perfect. You've hit nail on the head. Is anyone in the White House allowed guns other than the people guarding the president? Why do you think that is? Wouldn't he be safer if everyone was armed? Well obviously not. It sounds rediculous. If it's good enough for the president, why not your children (as you are fond of saying)
I you agree to pay for some armed Secret Service agents to guard my house, I will happily give up my guns.
I can't really imagine what it's like to live somewhere where those are the only two options that would make you feel safe in your own home.
Pretty sure violent criminals can attack anyone, anywhere. The question is whether you want to be a victim or not.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me which country it is that gives a burglar more rights than a homeowner.
-
If the information is correct, I think she should get more than 90 days in jail. She could have easily killed someone.
"Duva-Rodriguez was arraigned in the early afternoon in Rochester Hills on the single charge of reckless use, handling or discharge of a firearm, a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail and/or a fine."
They should give her a medal. Maybe she could have killed the shoplifter or some robber who gets coddled and protected until they kill somebody. The crimninals have all the rights and sympathy and the law has to watch every word and step or is attacked. Start shooting shoplifters and carjackers and I bet they will start finding some other way to support their drug habits. A job would be one way?
No guns here, [url]http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/12/31/homemade-bomb-kills-4-wounds-at-least-30-at-southern-philippine-market/[/url] ([url]http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/12/31/homemade-bomb-kills-4-wounds-at-least-30-at-southern-philippine-market/[/url])
I don't own a rifle or pistol.
Are you being facetious? I find it hard to believe you think death is an apt punishment for shoplifting or that you don't see that her actions were far more dangerous to the people there that day than shoplifting.
You might want to check out the Fleeing Felon Rule, theft of over $1000 would be a felony and if you actually read the article, they have mentioned it there as well.
In any case, the bad guys were caught and no one else hurt.
If you go into "What Ifs" then they bad guys could of killed someone in their get away if she had not stopped them. None of us can say for sure other than what has happened with no one being hurt or killed.
None of us should play arm chair quarterback on a Monday with this, let her local/state laws deal with it and go from there.
-
So far this year, 13 toddlers in the U.S. have killed themselves with a gun. Someone is shot by a toddler here once a week on average.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/)
-
So far this year, 13 toddlers in the U.S. have killed themselves with a gun. Someone is shot by a toddler here once a week on average.
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/[/url] ([url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/[/url])
Proof of bad parenting.
Far less incidents than other house dangers nobody asks to be banned.
-
So far this year, 13 toddlers in the U.S. have killed themselves with a gun. Someone is shot by a toddler here once a week on average.
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/[/url] ([url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/[/url])
Proof of bad parenting.
Far less incidents than other house dangers nobody asks to be banned.
Proof of very bad choices made by adults, and in most cases the parents, however they now have to live with the fact that this has happened along with any civil or criminal consequences.
We will NEVER be able to stop all accidents or incidents that will take a life and the more people that are in our population, the more the numbers can and will rise. We will always have people that will make bad choices with any items out there be it a firearm, motor vehicle, edged tool, drugs or common sense decisions. None of us have been given a guarantee of how long we will live or how short that will be. I suggest we do the best to make life the best we can for all people, both us and others around us but do that without infringing on their freedoms. It was what the United States was founded on.
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it. Voltaire.
-
Here is one of the many compilations about "responsible gun owners":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzTGlSp0oB8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzTGlSp0oB8)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwEyBItsXkw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwEyBItsXkw)
For gun lovers: no, it's not an NRA commercial!
-
So far this year, 13 toddlers in the U.S. have killed themselves with a gun. Someone is shot by a toddler here once a week on average.
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/[/url] ([url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/[/url])
Proof of bad parenting.
Far less incidents than other house dangers nobody asks to be banned.
Jail people when their guns are used in a crime or accidental shooting. Jail people who buy guns for criminals who aren't allowed to buy a gun. Stop people with metal health issues from legally getting a gun.
Don't complain that too many people of some group or class are in jail. They are the people who don't follow the laws and are repeat offenders.
But don't take away guns from people who are careful, don't use them for crime and are living within the law. Most criminals do not use legal or licensed guns.
-
The gun incidents here get sadder every day. Four year old girl shot in the head in a road rage incident. I'm more and more in favor of confiscating all privately owned guns and melting them down. Use them to make a monument to the hundreds of thousands of people killed here by guns. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/21/4-year-old-girl-dead-after-albuquerque-road-rage-shooting/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/21/4-year-old-girl-dead-after-albuquerque-road-rage-shooting/)
-
The gun incidents here get sadder every day. Four year old girl shot in the head in a road rage incident. I'm more and more in favor of confiscating all privately owned guns and melting them down. Use them to make a monument to the hundreds of thousands of people killed here by guns. [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/21/4-year-old-girl-dead-after-albuquerque-road-rage-shooting/[/url] ([url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/21/4-year-old-girl-dead-after-albuquerque-road-rage-shooting/[/url])
lets take away cars too because of drunk drivers....
So, we take guns away from law abiding people and only the bad guys will have them. I know that is cliche but how do you keep illegal guns out of the US with Mexico to the south.
Why not have tougher laws or better yet uphold the laws we have and hold people responsible.
-
Mexico gets its guns from us.
-
The gun incidents here get sadder every day. Four year old girl shot in the head in a road rage incident.
Don't forget the 6-year-old boy in Illiinois who shot his toddler brother to death a few days ago while playing cops 'n robbers with their daddy's gun.
Wonder if the toddler even knew what kind of lethal game he was playing?
-
FWIW, that shooting of the 4-year-old girl in Albuquerque today happened less than 1 hour from where I live in Santa Fe. My husband and I travel that stretch of I-40 all the time.
But one thing we don't do is engage in foolish games of "chicken" with other drivers. Not in wild-west New Mexico, and not anywhere else.
Reading more about it, it appears the dead girl's father was at least partially to blame… and ****he had two children in the back seat*** as he was dodgin' and weavin' and cuttin' the other driver off for the last 2 miles before the shooting happened.
The mind boggles.
-
The dad was totally in the wrong. But without the gun, this probably would have escalated into a shouting match, not the murder of a four-year-old girl. That's the problem with guns. It's much too easy to get angry and just kill someone.
-
Gift of multiculturalism to Sweden - no guns required for mass killings.
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/10/22/sweden-student-wearing-a-mask-and-a-sword-stabbs-teacher-and-student-to-death-three-injured/
-
Gift of multiculturalism to Sweden - no guns required for mass killings.
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/10/22/sweden-student-wearing-a-mask-and-a-sword-stabbs-teacher-and-student-to-death-three-injured/
Does Two = Mass? Tragic as it is for those individuals. Do you think if this person had got hold of a gun there would be more or less deaths. I seem to recall someone blathering that killings not involving guns wouldn't get the same coverage well this is no 1 on BBC website.
-
Gift of multiculturalism to Sweden - no guns required for mass killings.
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/10/22/sweden-student-wearing-a-mask-and-a-sword-stabbs-teacher-and-student-to-death-three-injured/
You really have a muslim/xenophobia issue. So sad!