MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Off Topic => Topic started by: Microstockphoto on July 08, 2016, 01:58
-
something needs to change in this country
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/08/us/philando-castile-alton-sterling-protests/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/08/us/philando-castile-alton-sterling-protests/index.html)
-
I agree and it is simple: less guns more life. :'(
my condolences to the families of the officers and my condolences also to the families and friends of the two black people killed by officers in the last days.
-
I wonder how bad it has to get before stricter gun laws are implemented? The police shoot very few people in the UK because most of them don't carry guns, as so few people have them. Maybe it makes us more vulnerable to the extremely rare times when someone goes crazy with a gun but it has to be better than having almost no gun controls.
-
I wonder how bad it has to get before stricter gun laws are implemented? The police shoot very few people in the UK because most of them don't carry guns, as so few people have them. Maybe it makes us more vulnerable to the extremely rare times when someone goes crazy with a gun but it has to be better than having almost no gun controls.
The same number of people killed by Police shootings in UK in 24 years as 24 days in the states. I just can't understand the blind spot Americans have on guns. No point in debating further
-
Saw something recently, can't recall where, along lines of;
"If a kid in a playground is hitting the other kids with a stick, you don't give all the kids a stick, you take away the one stick so no one gets hurt."
I thought it kinda summed up gun laws/control in the US for me.
-
Americans have their constitutional rights and they always go for that one when it comes to guns. And I am almost positive that most of these shootings are not legally purchased guns.
-
Americans have their constitutional rights and they always go for that one when it comes to guns. And I am almost positive that most of these shootings are not legally purchased guns.
Presumably you don't mean the 1186 killed by the police in 2015? (whoops getting dragged into pointless arguement again :-( )
-
No you will not get an argument here.
Your assumption is correct. I meant non law enforcment shootings. What you are implying is yet completely another issue.
Sent from my LG-D605 using Tapatalk
-
Did they have automatic assault rifles when the constitution was written ? Are there any limits on the type of gun you can buy in the us ?
-
Well apparently not, since the youtube is full of videos of people shooting anything from pistols to large caliber sniper rifles at random things...
-
I could not agree more. I am just saying what is the issue. Republicans and their view of their constitutional rights.
I am sure that these constitutional rights could still be there - but make it much harder to get a gun. Background check, psych eval, drug testing, 200+ hours of training, etc. Make it expensive. You are still guaranteeing these constitutional rights but not everyone could buy it.
When I was in States (I live and work in Bosnia now), it was weird to me that you could go to Walmart and buy guns like its a freaking candy. It was right there on the shelves like anything else.
So to sum it up, I agree with everyone but the reality is something else. Republicans will be republicans, democrats will be democrats
-
Did they have automatic assault rifles when the constitution was written ? Are there any limits on the type of gun you can buy in the us ?
No and apparently not.
When the second amendment was written (1791 I think), people were shooting muskets, and would average about 3 shots per minute. Semi- and automatic weapons made before 1986 can be owned legally (a generality...for specifics, google it), other than that, yes limits. But as already mentioned, one can buy just about anything they want, if you don't care about breaking the law.
IMHO, the second amendment needs to be amended and gun control laws need revamping.
-
It doesn't need to be amended, just interpreted correctly. The exact wording of the second amendment is, "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". The intention was to allow the keeping and bearing of arms to be done exclusively in the context of a well regulated militia for the security of the state. We can know this with absolute certainly because that's what it says in plain English. Random yahoos keeping guns in their house is not well regulated, not a militia, and not involved in the security of the State, so absolutely, 100% is NOT allowed under the second amendment! Individuals keeping arms outside of a militia is not covered by the constitution so should be left to the states.
This amendment was added most likely because the Revolution was fresh on the minds of the framers. In 1791, the U.S. did not have a large, professional military like now. In the event of an external threat (like the British), the military was augmented by militias organized by the states. Most arms, powder and shot was stored at community magazines and would be issued to the militias when needed. In 1774 and 1775 the British raided the magazines in the Massachusetts and Virginia colonies to try to prevent armed rebellion. I think these events in part were what stimulated the Founders to add the second amendment.
The modern equivalent of a 1790s militia would be the National Guard, and so far nobody has talked about disarming them. That is what is protected, not individuals owning guns outside of a militia. Firearm ownership outside of a militia is not mentioned by the Constitution, so on that issue it is silent. In the 1790s firearms were mostly flintlock muskets, which require a powder cartridge rammed in the barrel that is ignited by a flash of gunpowder started by a spark from flint hitting steel. Guns were made by hand, so were not easily available and quite expensive - your average citizen certainly would not have owned one unless they needed it for hunting. Keeping a lot of gunpowder in houses that were lit and heated by open flames was not a great idea, hence the communal magazines for the militias. The Founding Fathers were very reasonable in most of their beliefs, and I am quite certain they would be appalled at how their words have been misconstrued to facilitate the rampant killing in this country. It is a shame that one organization has been able to buy off so many members of Congress and get like-minded numbskulls appointed to the "Supreme" court to foist this travesty on the rest of us. We don't need to amend the constitution, just read what is written and understand its historical context. Unfortunately, that seems impossible so maybe it is time for the people to take back the country and rewrite that amendment in a way that could not by misinterpreted.
In Australia, after a series of shootings they put restrictions on gun ownership in 1996 and problems since then have dropped to almost none. The American people need to be as sensible as the Australians.
The police killings of course are an entirely different matter and a very difficult problem. Obviously the police do a very difficult job and have to make life-or-death decisions in a split second. If they hesitate they might be killed. On the other hand, it is quite clear that the police have been literally getting away with murder probably going back thousands of years and that needs to stop. Finding the right balance so the police can protect themselves (and us!) while making sure those who cross the line are identified and punished is more difficult. More cameras and a mandatory review plus a thorough psych evaluation of every cop who shoots someone (to identify any potential psychopaths) would be a good first step.
-
I feel sorry for the families that lost a husband, father, etc
This world is out of control - everywhere.
-
Yes, it is a terrible tragedy and it seems like this was a planned execution. Bad behavior by police is no excuse for murder - the perpetrators are worse than those they were condemning - especially of officers who were only there to do their jobs. The officers gunned down were innocent victims, but unfortunately are only a small part of the total carnage. Last year over 13,000 people were killed by gun violence in the U.S. - it is long past time for this to stop.
-
I don't need the constitution to tell me thats its my Human right to protect Myself and Family, I choose to own a gun for that very purpose. If you don't want to own a gun and think that by calling the police or lets say using a baseball bat will save your life or families lives in lets say a home invasion which typically involves two or more thugs who are armed then good luck with that, chances are you would wind up dead.
If you think that by outlawing guns that criminals and thugs won't have guns you are fooling yourself, just look at the terror attack on France that has the strictest gun laws. Hmm they seemed to have guns! There will always be a black market for guns. You might want to learn about Ghost Guns, most criminals seek to buy those. Millions of Americans own guns yet there are not millions of gun related deaths thats because most Americans are law abiding citizens who want to protect their families from people who do things like these snipers.
Guns are not the problem, if you outlaw guns they would use knives if you outlaw knives they would use rocks! It's the people who are the problem so stop blaming the guns. Their needs to be racial unity but instead there is allot of racial divide and hatred, thats the problem.
-
@sgoodwin4813...an excellent analysis of the second amendment and I agree totally. Well said on both posts.
-
Guns are not the problem, if you outlaw guns they would use knives if you outlaw knives they would use rocks! It's the people who are the problem so stop blaming the guns. Their needs to be racial unity but instead there is allot of racial divide and hatred, thats the problem.
jeepers creepers... pixel8 r u mad !? Of course the guns r the problem. Protect u're family by not selling guns, close the gun shops,
carefully monitor the "arms" black market, drastically increase the penalties for carrying a weapon. Only in this way your families will be safer. U can not kill 5,10,20 or 50 people with knives and rocks.
I personally live in a small town of 150k people(in europe) and did not see a gun in my life, I have not heard a gunshot in my life.In my town there is no gun shop and if you are caught wearing a gun...even with rubber bullets you get a criminal record and you risk jail.
There are a lot of people with mental health problems in this century which is due to many factors and you let liberty to anyone arm themselves ? believing that in this way you will protect your family ? you must be unusual to think you have any chance ... logic is simple more guns = more deaths, fewer guns = less dead
-
Oh god, if I hear one more ridiculous argument about France and thugs and criminals buying guns and protecting yourself from home invasions and they'll use a knife or a baseball bat or a pile of marshmallows I will barf.
We are a twisted country founded on invasion, genocide, war, slavery and white male supremacy. Unfortunately it's USA DNA. As the country gets less white, the white men feel power slipping away and encourage the proliferation of guns (for white men, natch), spend huge amounts on a super military, incarcerate black men for minor crimes at enormous rates (basically another form of slavery), militarize the police and give them carte blanche to kill black men for selling loosies or CDs or for having a "broken taillight."
We're an aggressive, warmongering third-world country. With people so stupid they think "Born in the USA" is a song about patriotism.
-
I don't need the constitution to tell me thats its my Human right to protect Myself and Family, I choose to own a gun for that very purpose. If you don't want to own a gun and think that by calling the police or lets say using a baseball bat will save your life or families lives in lets say a home invasion which typically involves two or more thugs who are armed then good luck with that, chances are you would wind up dead.
I would agree partially. But, let me ask you this - Why have the testing for drivers licence? Why go through some call them health checks (depending on the country - some more some less)? Why not let anyone drive who can afford a car? I would argue like I said in first post - yes leave the right to own a gun but with much harsher checks and rules.
-
I don't need the constitution to tell me thats its my Human right to protect Myself and Family, I choose to own a gun for that very purpose. If you don't want to own a gun and think that by calling the police or lets say using a baseball bat will save your life or families lives in lets say a home invasion which typically involves two or more thugs who are armed then good luck with that, chances are you would wind up dead.
If you think that by outlawing guns that criminals and thugs won't have guns you are fooling yourself, just look at the terror attack on France that has the strictest gun laws. Hmm they seemed to have guns! There will always be a black market for guns. You might want to learn about Ghost Guns, most criminals seek to buy those. Millions of Americans own guns yet there are not millions of gun related deaths thats because most Americans are law abiding citizens who want to protect their families from people who do things like these snipers.
Guns are not the problem, if you outlaw guns they would use knives if you outlaw knives they would use rocks! It's the people who are the problem so stop blaming the guns. Their needs to be racial unity but instead there is allot of racial divide and hatred, thats the problem.
Guns are not the problem, people misusing them is.
“Moore's thesis, which he later elaborated in Fahrenheit 9/11, is that the fear-mongering that permeates American society contributes to our epidemic of gun violence". We are also shown news stories being covered in Canada and how they don’t follow the “if it bleeds it leads” mentality. This adds to Moore's argument that the media is driving America's fear as well as their need for protection. The cartoon "A Brief History of the United States of America" encompasses Moore's view of where the fear in America started and how it's progressed and changed over the years.
I don't really like Michael Moore but he's right when he shows people just across the border from Detroit, in Canada, who are armed as much as many Americans, but don't go around shooting each other or police. It's attitude and people. Not the guns.
For the idea of take away the guns, only a fool would suggest that it's possible in the US to take away a right and the stockpile that has been accumulated in fear of the Government trying to take back weapons. Or for that matter, overthrow from outside, where people want to protect against any invasion or military coup.
Countries where the people have no choice, no defense and no weapons are rulled by dictators and the military. Mass murder and genocide are common. Look at so many in South America and Arfrica and tell me those people wouldn't benefit from being armed. How does that work for you lilly white no gun people?
This isn't as simple as take away the guns, which is impossible, so how about punish criminals, mandatory sentences for using a gun in a crime and proper background checks at gun shows. But mostly, enforce the laws we have.
-
I don't really like Michael Moore but he's right when he shows people just across the border from Detroit, in Canada, who are armed as much as many Americans, but don't go around shooting each other or police. It's attitude and people. Not the guns.
Baloney. First of all, you're comparing the most dangerous city in the US to the safest city in Canada. That has nothing to do with geography and everything to do with poverty, racism, lack of opportunity and easy access to guns. Second, Windsor, Canada's police chief credits the huge difference in murder rates to...wait for it...Canada's policy of strict gun control.
http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/a-tale-of-two-cities-windsor-and-detroit-murder-rates-show-stark-contrast (http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/a-tale-of-two-cities-windsor-and-detroit-murder-rates-show-stark-contrast)
-
Oh god, if I hear one more ridiculous argument about France and thugs and criminals buying guns and protecting yourself from home invasions and they'll use a knife or a baseball bat or a pile of marshmallows I will barf.
We are a twisted country founded on invasion, genocide, war, slavery and white male supremacy. Unfortunately it's USA DNA. As the country gets less white, the white men feel power slipping away and encourage the proliferation of guns (for white men, natch), spend huge amounts on a super military, incarcerate black men for minor crimes at enormous rates (basically another form of slavery), militarize the police and give them carte blanche to kill black men for selling loosies or CDs or for having a "broken taillight."
We're an aggressive, warmongering third-world country. With people so stupid they think "Born in the USA" is a song about patriotism.
+1000
And the best is yet to come, we may actually get a bigot for president soon!
America = too much freedom in all the wrong places!
-
I don't really like Michael Moore but he's right when he shows people just across the border from Detroit, in Canada, who are armed as much as many Americans, but don't go around shooting each other or police. It's attitude and people. Not the guns.
Baloney. First of all, you're comparing the most dangerous city in the US to the safest city in Canada. That has nothing to do with geography and everything to do with poverty, racism, lack of opportunity and easy access to guns. Second, Windsor, Canada's police chief credits the huge difference in murder rates to...wait for it...Canada's policy of strict gun control.
[url]http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/a-tale-of-two-cities-windsor-and-detroit-murder-rates-show-stark-contrast[/url] ([url]http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/a-tale-of-two-cities-windsor-and-detroit-murder-rates-show-stark-contrast[/url])
You missed the point. Why don't Canadians, just across the river, with guns, rob, murder and shoot each others, like their close neighbors? It's not the guns is it. Must be something else?
Poverty, opportunity and racism is the excuse for why people are inhuman to each other? You just tossed in guns for effect, right?
While the U.S. does have a homicide rate nearly double that of most developed countries like Canada, it doesn’t have the world’s highest homicide rate. With 6.4 homicides per 100 thousand people, the U.S. falls behind countries in Africa, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, and Latin America.
Do they have 10 million guns in Africa, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, or Latin America? There are that in Canada and I repeat, Canadians aren't shooting each other.
Must be something about civilized people, not the guns.
-
I don't really like Michael Moore but he's right when he shows people just across the border from Detroit, in Canada, who are armed as much as many Americans, but don't go around shooting each other or police. It's attitude and people. Not the guns.
Baloney. First of all, you're comparing the most dangerous city in the US to the safest city in Canada. That has nothing to do with geography and everything to do with poverty, racism, lack of opportunity and easy access to guns. Second, Windsor, Canada's police chief credits the huge difference in murder rates to...wait for it...Canada's policy of strict gun control.
[url]http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/a-tale-of-two-cities-windsor-and-detroit-murder-rates-show-stark-contrast[/url] ([url]http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/a-tale-of-two-cities-windsor-and-detroit-murder-rates-show-stark-contrast[/url])
You missed the point. Why don't Canadians, just across the river, with guns, rob, murder and shoot each others, like their close neighbors? It's not the guns is it. Must be something else?
Poverty, opportunity and racism is the excuse for why people are inhuman to each other? You just tossed in guns for effect, right?
While the U.S. does have a homicide rate nearly double that of most developed countries like Canada, it doesn’t have the world’s highest homicide rate. With 6.4 homicides per 100 thousand people, the U.S. falls behind countries in Africa, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, and Latin America.
Do they have 10 million guns in Africa, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, or Latin America? There are that in Canada and I repeat, Canadians aren't shooting each other.
Must be something about civilized people, not the guns.
No, I'm afraid YOU missed the point. YOU said people in Canada had just as many guns but didn't shoot each other like Americans do. YOU said it's the people, not the guns. But the Canadians say the difference is the GUNS. Everyone in the WORLD sees the difference is the guns. Most people in the USA see the difference is the guns. Only a small percentage of people...a small minority of Americans, who are themselves a small minority of the world population...just cannot or will not see the forest for the trees.
And if, for some reason, you still believe t's just because Americans are just more violent or crazy than everyone else (no argument from me), then why on earth would you want to arm those people with guns??? If you truly believe it's the people, then take the stupid guns away from them.
-
Guns are not the problem, if you outlaw guns they would use knives if you outlaw knives they would use rocks! It's the people who are the problem so stop blaming the guns. Their needs to be racial unity but instead there is allot of racial divide and hatred, thats the problem.
jeepers creepers... pixel8 r u mad !? Of course the guns r the problem. Protect u're family by not selling guns, close the gun shops,
carefully monitor the "arms" black market, drastically increase the penalties for carrying a weapon. Only in this way your families will be safer. U can not kill 5,10,20 or 50 people with knives and rocks.
I personally live in a small town of 150k people(in europe) and did not see a gun in my life, I have not heard a gunshot in my life.In my town there is no gun shop and if you are caught wearing a gun...even with rubber bullets you get a criminal record and you risk jail.
There are a lot of people with mental health problems in this century which is due to many factors and you let liberty to anyone arm themselves ? believing that in this way you will protect your family ? you must be unusual to think you have any chance ... logic is simple more guns = more deaths, fewer guns = less dead
Well there is the problem right there you lived in a small European town. Ive lived in the Projects I've Lived in the Ghetto of Houston called "Guns Point" and the Favelas of São Paulo Brazil. You've lived a privileged life in a nice part of the world so you don't speak from experience. If you haven't lived in poverty you don't know what you are talking about. I have lived in poverty for years and know first hand.
You are naive to think the solution is to monitor the black market, it's called the black market for a reason! You obviously don't know any gang members, I grew up around gangs. Gangs don't care about the laws that are passed they are a law unto themselves they will always have guns and when no American has guns, Gangs still will and will use them as well as other criminals.
The funny thing is that all the politicians who spout anti gun rhetoric have armed body guards, I guess their life is more important than yours?
-
First of all my prayers go out to the families here in Dallas.
I agree we need some stricter laws requiring more thorough background checks as well as increased requirements for training. We need stricter and longer sentences for gun violence offenses including mandatory prison sentences for carrying a gun without a license. Automatic death sentence with no appeal process for homicides committed with a firearm.
I for one believe, per the constitution, US citizens have the right to own a gun. As far as the constitutional rights, the militia originally was described as "all able-bodied men who are not members of the Army or Navy (Uniformed Services)". These were ordinary people not in an organized militia until they were called upon which means the constitution gave the right to any able bodied man the right to own a gun. The meaning has been changed over the years by congress.
I preface my next statement with agreement that restrictions need to be made with respect to high capacity assault type weapons. There were approximately 13,000 homicides committed with guns in 2015 and there were just under 10,000 deaths by drunk drivers in 2014 and that does not include all other car accident deaths. Should we take away every bodies cars cause cars are killing people. No, it is the drivers of those cars.
Just my opinion and all I am going to say because the two sides will never agree.
-
Oh god, if I hear one more ridiculous argument about France and thugs and criminals buying guns and protecting yourself from home invasions and they'll use a knife or a baseball bat or a pile of marshmallows I will barf.
We are a twisted country founded on invasion, genocide, war, slavery and white male supremacy. Unfortunately it's USA DNA. As the country gets less white, the white men feel power slipping away and encourage the proliferation of guns (for white men, natch), spend huge amounts on a super military, incarcerate black men for minor crimes at enormous rates (basically another form of slavery), militarize the police and give them carte blanche to kill black men for selling loosies or CDs or for having a "broken taillight."
We're an aggressive, warmongering third-world country. With people so stupid they think "Born in the USA" is a song about patriotism.
Go ahead and Barf, what is your answer or solution to the terror attack in France? You don't have one but to roll over and die from a Terrorist! I'm not for invasion, genocide, war or slavery I can tell you hate America but you fail to mention how far America has evolved away from those very things, maybe you should be more focussed on the countries who still practice genocide, war and slavery! As for police brutality there are certainly problems there and yet at the same time everyone wants to judge the situation based on news coverage, you weren't there and don't know everything about every case, you only know what the news outlets tell you, which isn't always the facts!
-
I don't need the constitution to tell me thats its my Human right to protect Myself and Family, I choose to own a gun for that very purpose. If you don't want to own a gun and think that by calling the police or lets say using a baseball bat will save your life or families lives in lets say a home invasion which typically involves two or more thugs who are armed then good luck with that, chances are you would wind up dead.
I would agree partially. But, let me ask you this - Why have the testing for drivers licence? Why go through some call them health checks (depending on the country - some more some less)? Why not let anyone drive who can afford a car? I would argue like I said in first post - yes leave the right to own a gun but with much harsher checks and rules.
There should be a fire arms handling test and a evaluation of metal health.
-
There were approximately 13,000 homicides committed with guns in 2015 and there were just under 10,000 deaths by drunk drivers in 2014 and that does not include all other car accident deaths. Should we take away every bodies cars cause cars are killing people. No, it is the drivers of those cars.
Barf.
-
Oh god, if I hear one more ridiculous argument about France and thugs and criminals buying guns and protecting yourself from home invasions and they'll use a knife or a baseball bat or a pile of marshmallows I will barf.
We are a twisted country founded on invasion, genocide, war, slavery and white male supremacy. Unfortunately it's USA DNA. As the country gets less white, the white men feel power slipping away and encourage the proliferation of guns (for white men, natch), spend huge amounts on a super military, incarcerate black men for minor crimes at enormous rates (basically another form of slavery), militarize the police and give them carte blanche to kill black men for selling loosies or CDs or for having a "broken taillight."
We're an aggressive, warmongering third-world country. With people so stupid they think "Born in the USA" is a song about patriotism.
Go ahead and Barf, what is your answer or solution to the terror attack in France? You don't have one but to roll over and die from a Terrorist! I'm not for invasion, genocide, war or slavery I can tell you hate America but you fail to mention how far America has evolved away from those very things, maybe you should be more focussed on the countries who still practice genocide, war and slavery! As for police brutality there are certainly problems there and yet at the same time everyone wants to judge the situation based on news coverage, you weren't there and don't know everything about every case, you only know what the news outlets tell you, which isn't always the facts!
Super barf.
-
I don't really like Michael Moore but he's right when he shows people just across the border from Detroit, in Canada, who are armed as much as many Americans, but don't go around shooting each other or police. It's attitude and people. Not the guns.
Baloney. First of all, you're comparing the most dangerous city in the US to the safest city in Canada. That has nothing to do with geography and everything to do with poverty, racism, lack of opportunity and easy access to guns. Second, Windsor, Canada's police chief credits the huge difference in murder rates to...wait for it...Canada's policy of strict gun control.
[url]http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/a-tale-of-two-cities-windsor-and-detroit-murder-rates-show-stark-contrast[/url] ([url]http://windsorstar.com/news/local-news/a-tale-of-two-cities-windsor-and-detroit-murder-rates-show-stark-contrast[/url])
You missed the point. Why don't Canadians, just across the river, with guns, rob, murder and shoot each others, like their close neighbors? It's not the guns is it. Must be something else?
Poverty, opportunity and racism is the excuse for why people are inhuman to each other? You just tossed in guns for effect, right?
While the U.S. does have a homicide rate nearly double that of most developed countries like Canada, it doesn’t have the world’s highest homicide rate. With 6.4 homicides per 100 thousand people, the U.S. falls behind countries in Africa, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, and Latin America.
Do they have 10 million guns in Africa, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, or Latin America? There are that in Canada and I repeat, Canadians aren't shooting each other.
Must be something about civilized people, not the guns.
No, I'm afraid YOU missed the point. YOU said people in Canada had just as many guns but didn't shoot each other like Americans do. YOU said it's the people, not the guns. But the Canadians say the difference is the GUNS. Everyone in the WORLD sees the difference is the guns. Most people in the USA see the difference is the guns. Only a small percentage of people...a small minority of Americans, who are themselves a small minority of the world population...just cannot or will not see the forest for the trees.
And if, for some reason, you still believe t's just because Americans are just more violent or crazy than everyone else (no argument from me), then why on earth would you want to arm those people with guns??? If you truly believe it's the people, then take the stupid guns away from them.
During the Great Depression just as many people had guns but they had more morals and values more common decency for others, the problem is not guns its the media who degrades good morals and values and promotes hate and violence, mixed that in with corruption and the out sourcing of jobs and you have despair which leads to hate and violence being carried out.
Unless you can get rid of all weapons getting rid of most peoples guns won't solve the problem you are only disarming people who want to protect themselves. My family has owned guns many generations back and we haven't shot anyone and so goes for almost all gun owners seeing how their are several million but because their are a few lose cannons your solution is to take all the cannons off the ship so the pirates can invade without a fight!
-
Oh god, if I hear one more ridiculous argument about France and thugs and criminals buying guns and protecting yourself from home invasions and they'll use a knife or a baseball bat or a pile of marshmallows I will barf.
We are a twisted country founded on invasion, genocide, war, slavery and white male supremacy. Unfortunately it's USA DNA. As the country gets less white, the white men feel power slipping away and encourage the proliferation of guns (for white men, natch), spend huge amounts on a super military, incarcerate black men for minor crimes at enormous rates (basically another form of slavery), militarize the police and give them carte blanche to kill black men for selling loosies or CDs or for having a "broken taillight."
We're an aggressive, warmongering third-world country. With people so stupid they think "Born in the USA" is a song about patriotism.
Go ahead and Barf, what is your answer or solution to the terror attack in France? You don't have one but to roll over and die from a Terrorist! I'm not for invasion, genocide, war or slavery I can tell you hate America but you fail to mention how far America has evolved away from those very things, maybe you should be more focussed on the countries who still practice genocide, war and slavery! As for police brutality there are certainly problems there and yet at the same time everyone wants to judge the situation based on news coverage, you weren't there and don't know everything about every case, you only know what the news outlets tell you, which isn't always the facts!
Super barf.
So no answer then just BARF! I have napkin for ya! but be careful of paper cuts we might need to outlaw those as well.
-
Pixel, this forum is a leftist stronghold devoid of any logic and common sense. Can't have a rational discussion with social justice warriors. BLM is an anti-white terrorist organization sponsored by Soros and praised by Obama and the media. Another racist attack just occurred in Tennessee, whites targeted.
-
The world is a leftist stronghold, whether the people be liberal or conservative, when seen through the eyes of the American gun lover.
-
Pixel, this forum is a leftist stronghold devoid of any logic and common sense. Can't have a rational discussion with social justice warriors. BLM is an anti-white terrorist organization sponsored by Soros and praised by Obama and the media. Another racist attack just occurred in Tennessee, whites targeted.
Black Lives Matter is a Hate Group! If they were not a racist hate group they would not be going around calling white people crackers! They would not be trying to convince whites they are privileged, They would not be calling for the killing of white people, instead they would be following after Martin Luther Kings approach calling for unity amongst all races to stop the over reaching hand of justice who has been hiring incompetent cops because most people don't want to work a job trying to stop a crumbling society!
-
The world is a leftist stronghold, whether the people be liberal or conservative, when seen through the eyes of the American gun lover.
Which Leftist Stronghold is your favorite?
1. Nazi Germany
2. Stalins Russia
3. Zimbabwe
4. venezuela
5. Cambodia
Just to name a few!
-
You're still allowed to own a gun in Australia, just not assault rifles designed to kill multiple people. People are the problem but access to assault weapons increases the ramifications when they do the wrong thing.
-
I say if you want to have guns, you have to enroll yourself in a "hunger games" type of tourneyment where about 10% of the contestants will die annually. That will drastically reduce gun ownership in any country. ;D
It's all about the dollar in the end anyways in America.
-
I don't need the constitution to tell me thats its my Human right to protect Myself and Family, I choose to own a gun for that very purpose. If you don't want to own a gun and think that by calling the police or lets say using a baseball bat will save your life or families lives in lets say a home invasion which typically involves two or more thugs who are armed then good luck with that, chances are you would wind up dead.
If you think that by outlawing guns that criminals and thugs won't have guns you are fooling yourself, just look at the terror attack on France that has the strictest gun laws. Hmm they seemed to have guns! There will always be a black market for guns. You might want to learn about Ghost Guns, most criminals seek to buy those. Millions of Americans own guns yet there are not millions of gun related deaths thats because most Americans are law abiding citizens who want to protect their families from people who do things like these snipers.
Guns are not the problem, if you outlaw guns they would use knives if you outlaw knives they would use rocks! It's the people who are the problem so stop blaming the guns. Their needs to be racial unity but instead there is allot of racial divide and hatred, thats the problem.
Ok I'll bite. How do you explain why people in countries with liberal gun laws like Saudia Arabia or Iraq couldn't prevent terrorist attacks recently. Since you're stating that a country with strict gun laws like France would be able to when they have liberal gun laws. Your logic here doesn't make sense.
Or a country like Iceland with the highest gun rate per capita has 0 homocides.
I think it's just the people's mentality and how people have been brought up that kills people.
-
Obviously there's a problem in the US that there isn't in lots of other countries but that makes it harder to understand why letting people that are mentally unstable have guns that can kill many people in a few minutes is a good idea.
The gun lobby might be taken more seriously if they attempted to tackle the problems in US society, instead of thinking Donald Trump will sort it out.
-
It doesn't need to be amended, just interpreted correctly. The exact wording of the second amendment is, "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". The intention was to allow the keeping and bearing of arms to be done exclusively in the context of a well regulated militia for the security of the state. We can know this with absolute certainly because that's what it says in plain English. Random yahoos keeping guns in their house is not well regulated, not a militia, and not involved in the security of the State, so absolutely, 100% is NOT allowed under the second amendment! Individuals keeping arms outside of a militia is not covered by the constitution so should be left to the states.
This amendment was added most likely because the Revolution was fresh on the minds of the framers. In 1791, the U.S. did not have a large, professional military like now. In the event of an external threat (like the British), the military was augmented by militias organized by the states. Most arms, powder and shot was stored at community magazines and would be issued to the militias when needed. In 1774 and 1775 the British raided the magazines in the Massachusetts and Virginia colonies to try to prevent armed rebellion. I think these events in part were what stimulated the Founders to add the second amendment.
The modern equivalent of a 1790s militia would be the National Guard, and so far nobody has talked about disarming them. That is what is protected, not individuals owning guns outside of a militia. Firearm ownership outside of a militia is not mentioned by the Constitution, so on that issue it is silent. In the 1790s firearms were mostly flintlock muskets, which require a powder cartridge rammed in the barrel that is ignited by a flash of gunpowder started by a spark from flint hitting steel. Guns were made by hand, so were not easily available and quite expensive - your average citizen certainly would not have owned one unless they needed it for hunting. Keeping a lot of gunpowder in houses that were lit and heated by open flames was not a great idea, hence the communal magazines for the militias. The Founding Fathers were very reasonable in most of their beliefs, and I am quite certain they would be appalled at how their words have been misconstrued to facilitate the rampant killing in this country. It is a shame that one organization has been able to buy off so many members of Congress and get like-minded numbskulls appointed to the "Supreme" court to foist this travesty on the rest of us. We don't need to amend the constitution, just read what is written and understand its historical context. Unfortunately, that seems impossible so maybe it is time for the people to take back the country and rewrite that amendment in a way that could not by misinterpreted.
In Australia, after a series of shootings they put restrictions on gun ownership in 1996 and problems since then have dropped to almost none. The American people need to be as sensible as the Australians.
The police killings of course are an entirely different matter and a very difficult problem. Obviously the police do a very difficult job and have to make life-or-death decisions in a split second. If they hesitate they might be killed. On the other hand, it is quite clear that the police have been literally getting away with murder probably going back thousands of years and that needs to stop. Finding the right balance so the police can protect themselves (and us!) while making sure those who cross the line are identified and punished is more difficult. More cameras and a mandatory review plus a thorough psych evaluation of every cop who shoots someone (to identify any potential psychopaths) would be a good first step.
excellent excellent post, cant be repeated enough
-
Obviously there's a problem in the US that there isn't in lots of other countries but that makes it harder to understand why letting people that are mentally unstable have guns that can kill many people in a few minutes is a good idea.
The gun lobby might be taken more seriously if they attempted to tackle the problems in US society, instead of thinking Donald Trump will sort it out.
The gun lobby is interested in only one thing, and that is selling guns. They represent gun manufacturers. Gun ownership as a percentage of U.S. population has been declining for decades. So the only way to increase gun sales and stay in businesses is to convince a shrinking number of people that they must arm themselves with more and bigger, more expensive guns.
That's why the gun lobby is so hell-bent on fighting any gun restriction, no matter how small or sensible; any restriction at all shrinks the consumer base even more quickly, and gun manufacturers will have to spend more money convincing even fewer people that they need even more guns.That's why ridiculous mass murder machines like the AK-15 or whatever each gun manufacturer calls their brand of shoot-em-up Rambo movie machine gun has become so crazily popular. Because if you' re selling guns to fewer people each year, then the guns themselves have to be bigger and more expensive so your profits continue to rise.
Gun manufacturers and the gun lobby are sociopaths who literally look forward to each mass shooting and see the deaths of more than 30,000 people per year as a business opportunity.
Edited to add: One of the reasons the number of gun owners is shrinking is because they kill themselves, taking themselves "off the market." The largest group of gun deaths in the USA is white men committing suicide, which is more than half of all gun deaths. 16,000 fewer gun owners each year simply because of suicide. And white men are the group most likely to own guns.
-
I don't need the constitution to tell me thats its my Human right to protect Myself and Family, I choose to own a gun for that very purpose. If you don't want to own a gun and think that by calling the police or lets say using a baseball bat will save your life or families lives in lets say a home invasion which typically involves two or more thugs who are armed then good luck with that, chances are you would wind up dead.
If you think that by outlawing guns that criminals and thugs won't have guns you are fooling yourself, just look at the terror attack on France that has the strictest gun laws. Hmm they seemed to have guns! There will always be a black market for guns. You might want to learn about Ghost Guns, most criminals seek to buy those. Millions of Americans own guns yet there are not millions of gun related deaths thats because most Americans are law abiding citizens who want to protect their families from people who do things like these snipers.
Guns are not the problem, if you outlaw guns they would use knives if you outlaw knives they would use rocks! It's the people who are the problem so stop blaming the guns. Their needs to be racial unity but instead there is allot of racial divide and hatred, thats the problem.
Ok I'll bite. How do you explain why people in countries with liberal gun laws like Saudia Arabia or Iraq couldn't prevent terrorist attacks recently. Since you're stating that a country with strict gun laws like France would be able to when they have liberal gun laws. Your logic here doesn't make sense.
Or a country like Iceland with the highest gun rate per capita has 0 homocides.
I think it's just the people's mentality and how people have been brought up that kills people.
I didn't say France could have stopped it, read my post and you will see that, my argument is that unless you rid the world of all weapons their will never be peace. Since their is no way to rid the world of weapons or violent people it is therefore better for people to be able to defend themselves and since guns will always exist I choose a gun to defend my family and myself.
As far as Saudi Arabia and Irag are concerned guns cant stop whats happening there. However I bet if you do live there you would be happy to own a gun to defend your family. If they didn't have guns there, the terrorist would still have them! And if they didn't have them they would be using swords. As for France this completes my argument, no one was supposed to be able to have guns in France and yet TaDa the Terrorists have GUNS! so gun control only unarmed the citizens of France who were then sitting ducks for insane people to kill them. If some of the law abiding citizens in France had guns they could have fought back and there would have been less deaths of innocent people.
Yet this common sense logic does not make sense to any of you because you people have been brainwashed by the liberal media and it is people like you who will get us all killed! Wait until this country collapses, its coming in your lifetime, and you find yourself in a situation like people did in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, or currently in Venezuela, you will wish you had a gun when that day comes! There is not enough cops or military to police the entire United States and if you think they will be there to save you, you're foolish.
As far as people have been brought up and their mentality is concerned I agree with you 100%
-
Common sense logic leads me to look at countries where fewer people are killed by guns and wonder what they do.
-
America will never give up its moronic maverick cowboy gun culture since the balance of power believe it's a birthright. The really idiotic ones think guns are a great form of self defence. I call it deluded paranoia and/or denial.
-
Two things,
1. When a police officer says "show me your hands" or "put your hands behind your back", do it like the rest of us do. Much more than half of the shootings by police are of people who refuse to obey the law. No matter what color you are if you refuse to obey a police officer trying to control a situation things are going to get rough. If you have a knife/gun and refuse to drop it good chance is your going to get shot. It is not the guns, it is (in a couple of the cases) poor decisions by cops, It is a lot of times young kids that want to be a bad a**. Things in this country would change immediately If thugs would simply obey the law.
The true problem is the way kids are raised.
2. Raise the age for owning guns and drinking.
-
Summary execution seems a rather harsh punishment for not obeying a cop
-
You seem to be forgetting the dead cops we keep burying. Yes, we have people who should not be a cop, yes that is process we need to change as well, and it is with cops going to jail for murder. What some people, especially in other countries seem to not get from the media, is how many of the citizens are getting robbed and killed everyday from these thugs.
Anyone that doesn't think so can should become a law enforcement officer and see for themselves. Read/watch the news of old ladies being dragged by their purse, old ladies being killed in their homes, young girls being dragged away from their mothers in Walmart.
Go gettim cops, go gettim !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If I were allowed to hang anyone it would be glorifying news media that pumps a story that will sell regardless of the truth.
you can't build a house without someone stealing from it, park a car without someone breaking the glass, over and over in this country we are besieged by thugs, most of them young or on drugs.
Many cops are shot as they walk up to a car, we have many sad stories of the wrong things in this country, the good people die, the good cops die, the innocent are always paying the price.
But we can easily solve 90% of the problem, "let me see your hands, Yes officer, here they are ""
There is a game being played in this country, "Lets mess with the cops".
-
You know how many cops were shot in the Uk? Doesn't that make you pause and think something might not be quite right? UK police are not routinely armed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty
-
According to the guardian, it is more than 4000 officers since 1792, more than 250 since 1945.
The u.k. is 57% the size of California, one state, Also in 2014 & 2015, 23000 law enforcement officers were assaulted in the U.K.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/datablog/2015/oct/15/how-many-police-officers-harmed-line-of-duty (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/datablog/2015/oct/15/how-many-police-officers-harmed-line-of-duty)
-
According to the guardian, it is more than 4000 officers since 1792, more than 250 since 1945.
The u.k. is 57% the size of California, one state, Also in 2014 & 2015, 23000 law enforcement officers were assaulted in the U.K.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/datablog/2015/oct/15/how-many-police-officers-harmed-line-of-duty (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/datablog/2015/oct/15/how-many-police-officers-harmed-line-of-duty)
population of the UK is 65 million, US 321 million so about 20% of the size.
I wonder why you would choose the largest state by population giving the impression that the UK is only 2% the size of the US as opposed to 20%? I can't possibly guess.
-
I'm not sure what the point is either. Statistically many more officers are killed in the U.S., and many, many, many more civilians are killed by police in the U.S., and many, many, many, many more civilians shoot each other and themselves to death, which once again points to guns as the big U.S. problem.
-
as opposed to 20%? I can't possibly guess.
It honestly was the first thing that came up when i searched google.
https://www.google.com/search?q=size+of+u.k.+vs+america&oq=size+of+u.k.+vs+america&aqs=chrome..69i57.7342j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=size+of+u.k.+vs+united+states (https://www.google.com/search?q=size+of+u.k.+vs+america&oq=size+of+u.k.+vs+america&aqs=chrome..69i57.7342j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=size+of+u.k.+vs+united+states)
But you seem to be one of those people that I simply do not care for when reaching so far during a discussion, good luck in life.
-
Try and cut the statistics how you like the fact is way far more police are killed per capita in the US than the UK. But rather than address that issue you argue about the detail of the stats. To me there are two questions are you happy with the number of Police Killed in the US? If no what would you do about it?
-
Statistically more Americans kill more Americans by guns domestically than the total amount of Americans killed by terrorists both domestically and internationally.
Americans killing Americans is a national past time. It's a gun culture. They are at war with themselves.
-
The police in the UK can use a taser or pepper spray if the person they are dealing with looks like they are going for a weapon. Its a lot easier when there usually aren't any guns on either side.
-
The police in the UK can use a taser or pepper spray if the person they are dealing with looks like they are going for a weapon. Its a lot easier when there usually aren't any guns on either side.
Exactly
-
You know how many cops were shot in the Uk? Doesn't that make you pause and think something might not be quite right? UK police are not routinely armed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty
Yeah, thats why there are no go zones in France and England, thats really working out for them!
-
The police in the UK can use a taser or pepper spray if the person they are dealing with looks like they are going for a weapon. Its a lot easier when there usually aren't any guns on either side.
So lets say you were in France when the attack went down and you were there in person, I guess you would be hoping that the cops showed up with their tasers and pepper spray?
I really can't see how any of you can not imagine what if you were in that situation and what you would do or wish you had to protect yourselves? Are you all telling me honestly that if you were in that situation you would just hope for the best, hope that you would not get shot? I find it hard to believe that if you were in that situation that you would not be wishing you had a way to protect yourselves and the ones you love.
-
You know how many cops were shot in the Uk? Doesn't that make you pause and think something might not be quite right? UK police are not routinely armed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty
Yeah, thats why there are no go zones in France and England, thats really working out for them!
Not in the UK.....don't know about France
-
The police in the UK can use a taser or pepper spray if the person they are dealing with looks like they are going for a weapon. Its a lot easier when there usually aren't any guns on either side.
So lets say you were in France when the attack went down and you were there in person, I guess you would be hoping that the cops showed up with their tasers and pepper spray?
I really can't see how any of you can not imagine what if you were in that situation and what you would do or wish you had to protect yourselves? Are you all telling me honestly that if you were in that situation you would just hope for the best, hope that you would not get shot? I find it hard to believe that if you were in that situation that you would not be wishing you had a way to protect yourselves and the ones you love.
Obviously not that the point is simply statistically far more Police are killed in the states you can hypothesise all you like some might say its an issue that needs to be addressed
-
The police in the UK can use a taser or pepper spray if the person they are dealing with looks like they are going for a weapon. Its a lot easier when there usually aren't any guns on either side.
So lets say you were in France when the attack went down and you were there in person, I guess you would be hoping that the cops showed up with their tasers and pepper spray?
I really can't see how any of you can not imagine what if you were in that situation and what you would do or wish you had to protect yourselves? Are you all telling me honestly that if you were in that situation you would just hope for the best, hope that you would not get shot? I find it hard to believe that if you were in that situation that you would not be wishing you had a way to protect yourselves and the ones you love.
It is statistically proven that, per capita, there are more deaths caused by firearms in the US than any other industrialized countries.
It is statistically proven that, per capita, there are more firearms in the US than any other industrialized country.
Now like all statistics, it is to be treated as a general rule and not on a very unique highly publicized situations as the one you describe.
As an example, it is now widely accepted and statiscally proven that seat belt save lives. But what about if you drive into a river, get tangled up in your seat belt and can't get out of your car? What about if your car burst into flames and while in a state of panic can't undo your seat belt?
Statistics are not about those very unique situations but about the general thrend of the all population. Yes, in that unique situation in France someone with a gun may have had an edge for the same reason not having a seat belt while your car burst into flames might give you an edge as well.
Quite simply the odds of not getting shot at are just better when there are less guns around and those very unique situations, as you mentioned, are not significant enought to offset those odds. To put those odds in perspective, in 2015, there were over 13,000 deaths caused by firearms in the US.
Having the all population carrying guns would be very frightening as domestic violence would escalate into more deaths. Each knock on your door and each wrong look from a stranger would make you fear for your life. At what point people will start premptively shooting at each other just out of fear? What do you think made that police shoot this guy? If a trained police officer can't control his fear, how do you think the general population would?
-
If everybody had guns on them in public and one person shoots someone then everybody pulls guns how do you know who are the "goodies" and who are the baddies. I can understand the argument about having a gun in your home for defence a lot more than the public situation.
-
If everybody had guns on them in public and one person shoots someone then everybody pulls guns how do you know who are the "goodies" and who are the baddies. I can understand the argument about having a gun in your home for defence a lot more than the public situation.
I was thinking the same. I also wonder how many of these mass shootings have actually been stopped by an armed member of the public. Maybe they have but I've not heard of it, it's usually the police that take down the gunman.
-
If everybody had guns on them in public and one person shoots someone then everybody pulls guns how do you know who are the "goodies" and who are the baddies. I can understand the argument about having a gun in your home for defence a lot more than the public situation.
I was thinking the same. I also wonder how many of these mass shootings have actually been stopped by an armed member of the public. Maybe they have but I've not heard of it, it's usually the police that take down the gunman.
Not just mass shootings but any incidents involving an armed assailant. There was a website that supposedly kept track of this but then it was exposed as almost entirely BS, with most of the cases actually putting more innocent people in danger of being hit by stray bullets while people took pot shots at shoplifters and the like. If there are any verifiable cases among the hundreds of incidents of gun violence per year it would be good to know. Guns are for highly trained professionals, members of the public shooting bullets about in public spaces makes no one safer.
It's becoming apparent that even the training given to cops in the US is insufficient for them to use guns safely. I am sure that one of the outcomes from the black lives matter movement will be much better training for members of the police force for when to use a gun, not just how to shoot straight. Apparently there's very little of it at the moment, a police firearms instructor was on the news yesterday saying that most forces don't have any at all and it is a huge oversight. They have to be put in high pressure high stress training exercises. It must be terrifying for a policeman not knowing if anyone they stop could be armed, even worse when they know the person is armed. As in the recent case with the guy getting shot reaching for his ID in the car. The driver terrified staring down the barrel of a gun frantically trying to tell the cop his gun is legal and reaching for his permit, the cop terrified pointing a gun with shaky hands hearing the guy say he as a gun. How easy is it for someone to get shot in that kind of situation?
-
Not just mass shootings but any incidents involving an armed assailant. There was a website that supposedly kept track of this but then it was exposed as almost entirely BS, with most of the cases actually putting more innocent people in danger of being hit by stray bullets while people took pot shots at shoplifters and the like. If there are any verifiable cases among the hundreds of incidents of gun violence per year it would be good to know. Guns are for highly trained professionals, members of the public shooting bullets about in public spaces makes no one safer.
It's becoming apparent that even the training given to cops in the US is insufficient for them to use guns safely. I am sure that one of the outcomes from the black lives matter movement will be much better training for members of the police force for when to use a gun, not just how to shoot straight. Apparently there's very little of it at the moment, a police firearms instructor was on the news yesterday saying that most forces don't have any at all and it is a huge oversight. They have to be put in high pressure high stress training exercises. It must be terrifying for a policeman not knowing if anyone they stop could be armed, even worse when they know the person is armed. As in the recent case with the guy getting shot reaching for his ID in the car. The driver terrified staring down the barrel of a gun frantically trying to tell the cop his gun is legal and reaching for his permit, the cop terrified pointing a gun with shaky hands hearing the guy say he as a gun. How easy is it for someone to get shot in that kind of situation?
Yes, and it is not too farfetched to think that this situation could have turned out far worse if the girlfriend had a gun too and in a state of panic, started to shoot back at the police officer to protect her boyfriend while her 4 year old daugther watch the carnage and see her mother get shot at too by other officers...
-
Just as I suspected. So all this carrying a gun for self defence is a load of rubbish.
-
The police in the UK can use a taser or pepper spray if the person they are dealing with looks like they are going for a weapon. Its a lot easier when there usually aren't any guns on either side.
So lets say you were in France when the attack went down and you were there in person, I guess you would be hoping that the cops showed up with their tasers and pepper spray?
I really can't see how any of you can not imagine what if you were in that situation and what you would do or wish you had to protect yourselves? Are you all telling me honestly that if you were in that situation you would just hope for the best, hope that you would not get shot? I find it hard to believe that if you were in that situation that you would not be wishing you had a way to protect yourselves and the ones you love.
There were zillions of armed cops and at least a few armed civilians at the Dallas protest, and when the sniper started firing the cops could not stop him and the civilians with guns RAN AWAY, which is exactly what one would do if someone opened fire in that situation.
American gun lovers are living a movie fantasy in their minds. They imagine they're Rambo and will immediately coolly assess any situation and take out the "bad guys" with carefully calculated shots while miraculously avoiding getting hit themselves. I'm sure the guy who was falsely accused of being one of the "shooters" because he was protesting with an Ar-15 slung over his shoulder had the same fantasy until the situation actually occurred. When it did, he handed his gun to a cop and got the heck out of there. Then the world started hunting him down because the cops pegged him as a suspect and his face was plastered all over the media. If found quickly he could easily have been shot and killed by mistaken police. The reality is that having a gun in a shooting situation makes you a suspect and a potential victim, not a super hero.
(In fact, there's an article in the NY Times this morning about that very thing: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/texas-open-carry-laws-blurred-lines-between-suspects-and-marchers.html?emc=edit_th_20160711&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=26752818&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/texas-open-carry-laws-blurred-lines-between-suspects-and-marchers.html?emc=edit_th_20160711&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=26752818&_r=0))
-
If everybody had guns on them in public and one person shoots someone then everybody pulls guns how do you know who are the "goodies" and who are the baddies. I can understand the argument about having a gun in your home for defence a lot more than the public situation.
That is an easy one if you use American logic...
The "goodies" don't wear no "hoodies" so shoot em.
-
You know how many cops were shot in the Uk? Doesn't that make you pause and think something might not be quite right? UK police are not routinely armed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty
Yeah, thats why there are no go zones in France and England, thats really working out for them!
Have you been watching Fox news? They couldn't be further from the truth. When they said Birmingham in England was a no go zone, I don't think people here could quite believe it. It's as accurate as saying New York is a no go zone. Why do people still think its true when they had to apologise for a “serious factual error”? What we are told in the TV news and newspapers is often inaccurate. The internet has made things worse, there are people just making things up and they get reported as facts.
-
Interesting NY Times article - that tells a lot.
I have always thought that, with all the people carrying guns in the U.S., it was only a matter of time before someone hears a car backfire, thinks it is a gunshot, pulls out their gun, then someone else does the same and they each think the other is a criminal and start shooting at each other. The fact that this has never happened (as fas as I know) tells me that most gun owners are sane, reasonable and responsible. That is a good thing.
However, numerous studies have shown that owning a gun - statistically speaking - makes you more likely to be a victim of gun violence. Cases where a citizen with a gun stopped a crime, as pointed out already, are rare and, in the case of the Orlando shooting, a security guard with a gun made no difference. Home invasions may be a different story, but a sturdy door with a strong lock is probably a better defense than a gun. I suspect that most of the "big, tough" guys who parade around with assault weapons are mostly small, insecure losers who need a gun to feel important and that if shooting actually started most of them would wet their pants and run away - which is pretty much what happened according to the NY Times article (minus the pant wetting part which they didn't mention one way or the other).
Getting rid of all the guns in the U.S. is not going to happen and is not being proposed by anyone. However, we should be able to agree on some very reasonable restrictions. Some of these could be:
1) Ban all assault weapons. They serve no purpose other than killing lots of people and should not be possessed by anyone outside of the military.
2) Ban all high-capacity magazines. Ditto above. If you want a gun for self protection a few rounds should be sufficient. If you think you need an assault weapon then maybe you should improve your aim at a shooting range or try a shotgun instead.
3) Have mandatory background checks for all gun purchases, even those at gun shows or between private individuals. Obviously this would require some investment in infrastructure but is easily doable with a little effort.
4) Ban all gun sales to anyone on terrorist watch lists or with a history of mental illness. You could file an appeal f you think you are wrongly on the list. Could anyone really oppose this?
All of the above seem like no-brainers to me. Of course a determined criminal will still be able to get guns but the above seems like a reasonable start and getting rid of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines should reduce the casualties from attacks and ease the job of law enforcement. The Government should have a buy-back program to pay people fair value for the assault weapons so they can buy something else if they want - gun manufacturers might even support that. I think most Americans would support similar measures.
IMO we ultimately will need to take it further. I would institute mandatory registration of all guns and licensing for gun users. You have to have registration and a license for cars, and it should be the same for guns, with mandatory safety training and refresher courses every few years. Registration could be done through your local motor vehicles office and the NRA could be a provider of training so they should like that. This would have to be phased in over a few years but also should be easily doable. The other thing that should be done immediately is to lift the ban on doing research about gun violence - that is an idiotic law that was instituted by lawmakers bought off by the NRA.
Fixing issues with the police and changing the culture that glorifies guns are more difficult but doable in the long term. Getting our politicians out of the pockets of the NRA (which is mostly financed by gun manufacturers) and passing reasonable restrictions on the most dangerous weapons should be our highest priority. Such restrictions are supported by the vast majority of citizens and it continually amazes me that they can't get any laws through Congress.
-
The police in the UK can use a taser or pepper spray if the person they are dealing with looks like they are going for a weapon. Its a lot easier when there usually aren't any guns on either side.
So lets say you were in France when the attack went down and you were there in person, I guess you would be hoping that the cops showed up with their tasers and pepper spray?
I really can't see how any of you can not imagine what if you were in that situation and what you would do or wish you had to protect yourselves? Are you all telling me honestly that if you were in that situation you would just hope for the best, hope that you would not get shot? I find it hard to believe that if you were in that situation that you would not be wishing you had a way to protect yourselves and the ones you love.
The odds of getting caught up in a terrorist attack are so tiny, it isn't worth worrying about. If we were all carrying guns around all the time just in case, we would be shooting each other more often than the terrorist do, like you are in the US.
We have armed response units in the UK, so if I ever did have the almost unbelievable misfortune to be caught up in an attack like Paris, they would probably deal with it much better than civilians with guns that aren't trained for those circumstances. I'm sure if I had a gun and was caught up in something like that, I would just run. I wonder how many people with guns have died before they get the chance to pull the trigger?
-
The police in the UK can use a taser or pepper spray if the person they are dealing with looks like they are going for a weapon. Its a lot easier when there usually aren't any guns on either side.
So lets say you were in France when the attack went down and you were there in person, I guess you would be hoping that the cops showed up with their tasers and pepper spray?
I really can't see how any of you can not imagine what if you were in that situation and what you would do or wish you had to protect yourselves? Are you all telling me honestly that if you were in that situation you would just hope for the best, hope that you would not get shot? I find it hard to believe that if you were in that situation that you would not be wishing you had a way to protect yourselves and the ones you love.
Let's say you were there with a hand gun (assuming one is not walking around with an AK-47 openly), what are you going to do against automatic weapons? You might as well throw rocks at them.
On a side note, there were 2 police officers outside the Bataclan when it happened, they couldn't go in because they know they were nice targets to the terrorists since they only had standard hand guns with them. And these are professionals with a gun, how would you think you stand a chance against multiple terrorists with machine guns? Reality is far from what you see in movies.
-
The police in the UK can use a taser or pepper spray if the person they are dealing with looks like they are going for a weapon. Its a lot easier when there usually aren't any guns on either side.
So lets say you were in France when the attack went down and you were there in person, I guess you would be hoping that the cops showed up with their tasers and pepper spray?
I really can't see how any of you can not imagine what if you were in that situation and what you would do or wish you had to protect yourselves? Are you all telling me honestly that if you were in that situation you would just hope for the best, hope that you would not get shot? I find it hard to believe that if you were in that situation that you would not be wishing you had a way to protect yourselves and the ones you love.
Let's say you were there with a hand gun (assuming one is not walking around with an AK-47 openly), what are you going to do against automatic weapons? You might as well throw rocks at them.
On a side note, there were 2 police officers outside the Bataclan when it happened, they couldn't go in because they know they were nice targets to the terrorists since they only had standard hand guns with them. And these are professionals with a gun, how would you think you stand a chance against multiple terrorists with machine guns? Reality is far from what you see in movies.
You are wrong, in 1996 a gunman came on to a military base where my parents served with an ak 47 with a 100 round clip and started killing people at the hospital. An MP rode a bike down the road from his post, the gunman exited the building shooting at my mother as he pulled up on the bike, he got off the bike and from 100 yards shot and killed the gunman.
It is obvious that we will never agree, I am a firm believer in gun ownership, I come form a military family of several generations who has protected your rights as citizens. You can go down that Commie Liberal road all you want but I will never give up my Rights to you or anyone else.
You are in a dream state if you think Society will peacefully coexist it never has and never will that is why every society from the dawn of civilization has had weapons to protect themselves.
-
The police in the UK can use a taser or pepper spray if the person they are dealing with looks like they are going for a weapon. Its a lot easier when there usually aren't any guns on either side.
So lets say you were in France when the attack went down and you were there in person, I guess you would be hoping that the cops showed up with their tasers and pepper spray?
I really can't see how any of you can not imagine what if you were in that situation and what you would do or wish you had to protect yourselves? Are you all telling me honestly that if you were in that situation you would just hope for the best, hope that you would not get shot? I find it hard to believe that if you were in that situation that you would not be wishing you had a way to protect yourselves and the ones you love.
Let's say you were there with a hand gun (assuming one is not walking around with an AK-47 openly), what are you going to do against automatic weapons? You might as well throw rocks at them.
On a side note, there were 2 police officers outside the Bataclan when it happened, they couldn't go in because they know they were nice targets to the terrorists since they only had standard hand guns with them. And these are professionals with a gun, how would you think you stand a chance against multiple terrorists with machine guns? Reality is far from what you see in movies.
You are wrong, in 1996 a gunman came on to a military base where my parents served with an ak 47 with a 100 round clip and started killing people at the hospital. An MP rode a bike down the road from his post, the gunman exited the building shooting at my mother as he pulled up on the bike, he got off the bike and from 100 yards shot and killed the gunman.
It is obvious that we will never agree, I am a firm believer in gun ownership, I come form a military family of several generations who has protected your rights as citizens. You can go down that Commie Liberal road all you want but I will never give up my Rights to you or anyone else.
You are in a dream state if you think Society will peacefully coexist it never has and never will that is why every society from the dawn of civilization has had weapons to protect themselves.
Did this happen in the U.S.? Was the shooter with an ak47 a civilian?
-
You are wrong, in 1996 a gunman came on to a military base where my parents served with an ak 47 with a 100 round clip and started killing people at the hospital. An MP rode a bike down the road from his post, the gunman exited the building shooting at my mother as he pulled up on the bike, he got off the bike and from 100 yards shot and killed the gunman.
It is obvious that we will never agree, I am a firm believer in gun ownership, I come form a military family of several generations who has protected your rights as citizens. You can go down that Commie Liberal road all you want but I will never give up my Rights to you or anyone else.
You are in a dream state if you think Society will peacefully coexist it never has and never will that is why every society from the dawn of civilization has had weapons to protect themselves.
No, you are wrong, firstly you're talking about one guy with an ak47 in the open as he exited a bldg which give a lot more room to maneuver as oppose to multiple guys with ak47 in an enclosed area where there are absolutely no room for a good strategic defense. Secondly, that MP was a trained police officer not a regular civilian. Military and polices are trained professional dedicating their life handling guns for the sole purpose of saving civilian lives and theirs not the other way around. In a world were everybody would have guns nobody would be able to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys.
Lets say on that same base, before that MP showed up, a civilian guy pulled up his gun and started shooting at the guy with the ak47 but in the process accidentally killed a kid, than the MP shows up. How that MP is supposed to know that the regular guy with the gun is a good guy as well? Yes the MP could accidentally kill that kid too, but at least everybody would know he is the good guy.
This is the heart of the problem which you seem to willfully omit.
You see there is a reason for the police to wear a uniform and to carry a badge. It is to tell us that in a bad situation they are the good guys. At least most of them are
-
"On 20 June 1994, Dean Mellberg, an ex-Air Force member, entered the base hospital and shot and killed four people and wounded 23 others.[19] Mellberg recently had been discharged from Cannon AFB, NM as unfit for duty... He traveled to the town of Airway Heights, just outside Fairchild AFB, where he purchased weapons and planned his attack on the base."
This sounds like an awful situation and I feel for the people who were there, but it actually is an excellent example of why we should make it much more difficult for civilians to buy guns. He was kicked out of the military and was able to just drive to a nearby town and come back with weapons of war capable of spraying people with bullets. A very clear example of why we should ban guns like these.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/21/us/gunman-kills-2-and-hurts-19-on-air-force-base.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/21/us/gunman-kills-2-and-hurts-19-on-air-force-base.html)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Air_Force_Base#1994_shooting_incident (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Air_Force_Base#1994_shooting_incident)
-
I don't need the constitution to tell me thats its my Human right to protect Myself and Family, I choose to own a gun for that very purpose. If you don't want to own a gun and think that by calling the police or lets say using a baseball bat will save your life or families lives in lets say a home invasion which typically involves two or more thugs who are armed then good luck with that, chances are you would wind up dead.
If you think that by outlawing guns ....
Here's the fundamental problem with arguing gun control. Every comment before this one was about control and regulation. Not banning or outlawing. Yet every single time there's an argument, this is the usual response. They turn it into an all or nothing argument. Own a gun, sure. But nationally, consistently, prove you're not a danger to society first. Yes, criminals will get guns somehow. But if you think that dumb criminals won't get caught more often than not, then really there's no point in discussing this further. I don't understand how making it harder for criminals to get guns can be a bad thing (ie. more regulation).
You can get almost any gun you want here in Canada with a few exceptions. The difference is that nationally you have to jump through more hoops to prove that you can be a responsible gun owner. Why? Because we had a mass shooting and changed the laws to make it harder to get a gun. It works, its proven to work. There will always be murder, but why not try and prevent at least some of them?
-
How many kids are killed each year playing with their parents guns ?
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36770136 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36770136)
-
How many kids are killed each year playing with their parents guns ?
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/gun-violence-stats-2015/ (https://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/gun-violence-stats-2015/)
"Kids younger than three have gotten ahold of guns and shot someone at least 59 times this year, a disturbing trend first reported by Christopher Ingraham at the Washington Post in October. Most often, these toddlers injure or kill themselves, but more than a dozen have shot other people, sometimes fatally. Gun violence prevention advocates say that gun storage requirements and the adoption of smart guns that only fire for their owners could reduce these deaths, but the gun lobby vehemently opposes such mandates. In November, after the Post’s report, 20 Democrats in the U.S. Senate asked the Government Accountability Office to issue a report on the safe storage of guns in American homes."
-
More Americans own ten or more guns than there are people in Norway. Sick.
-
When two countries (or any other entities or sides) are at war and you are being fired on, you return fire, you don't care if the guy on the other side has a family, he didn't care if you had. You don't stand and watch or shout "that's wrong!"
I really can't understand a logic where a group of people can fire at other group of people and only one of those groups is entitled to return fire. Police just got a little taste of what they've been doing for a long time and everyone should feel for them? We should be civilized now? Let's talk now, not shoot? Yeah right, tell that to innocent people killed by police, they too have families.
If the police didn't want to get sniped they shouldn't have killed innocent people for fun. Simple as that. If you are policeman and you are innocent and you judge the killing of innocent people, well, step out and say it: "Something in police doesn't work let do something about it" - if you say nothing you as well might be a murderer.
-
When two countries (or any other entities or sides) are at war and you are being fired on, you return fire, you don't care if the guy on the other side has a family, he didn't care if you had. You don't stand and watch or shout "that's wrong!"
I really can't understand a logic where a group of people can fire at other group of people and only one of those groups is entitled to return fire. Police just got a little taste of what they've been doing for a long time and everyone should feel for them? We should be civilized now? Let's talk now, not shoot? Yeah right, tell that to innocent people killed by police, they too have families.
If the police didn't want to get sniped they shouldn't have killed innocent people for fun. Simple as that. If you are policeman and you are innocent and you judge the killing of innocent people, well, step out and say it: "Something in police doesn't work let do something about it" - if you say nothing you as well might be a murderer.
So something in police doesn't work, so therefore, let's arm all civilians and declare open war on cops? And while we are at it, let's arm ALL civilians with semi- and automatic weapons, so we can show all the innocent bystanders just who's boss. This war is just like a nuclear war...there are no winners. Everybody dies. Is that what should happen? No. What should happen is EVERYBODY puts down their guns and finds some other solutions to all their hate and ignorance. And even if one side tries to make changes, the other side digs in their heels and is not willing to compromise, kind of like when legislators say they want to put firmer gun control laws and regulations in place, the NRA and followers shout at the top of their lungs NO OUTLAWING OF GUNS. Until both sides are willing to compromise, nothing will change and the violence will continue. :(
-
Both sides being willing to compromise sounds nice, but what exactly should the side who wants more gun control do to compromise? We've gotten absolutely no concessions from the pro-gun side, who refuse to budge on anything whatsoever. They want terrorists to be able to buy AK47s. People on the no-fly list. People who are kicked out of the military. People who are feeling suicidal or homicidal. People who feel the need to "protect their families" with entire arsenals of weapons. No limits on the number of guns, the clips. No research allowed. No discussion in Congress...they just go on vacation or turn off the cameras.
Small town police forces arm themselves with tanks and military weapons. Cops shoot innocent people of every color to death a few times a day. Mass shootings happen so often it barely makes the news any more.
The pro-gun control side is more reasonable than you'd think reasonable could be. They're so afraid of the Second Amendment they only call for minor concessions--like banning AR-15s for suspected terrorists--that there's no way they'll ask for what we really need, the only thing that will actually make a dent, which is a huge national gun buy back and strict gun controls, which have been put in place by every reasonably civilized country but ours.
Perhaps we should stop describing ourselves as civilized.
-
You are wrong, in 1996 a gunman came on to a military base where my parents served with an ak 47 with a 100 round clip and started killing people at the hospital. An MP rode a bike down the road from his post, the gunman exited the building shooting at my mother as he pulled up on the bike, he got off the bike and from 100 yards shot and killed the gunman.
It is obvious that we will never agree, I am a firm believer in gun ownership, I come form a military family of several generations who has protected your rights as citizens. You can go down that Commie Liberal road all you want but I will never give up my Rights to you or anyone else.
You are in a dream state if you think Society will peacefully coexist it never has and never will that is why every society from the dawn of civilization has had weapons to protect themselves.
No, you are wrong, firstly you're talking about one guy with an ak47 in the open as he exited a bldg which give a lot more room to maneuver as oppose to multiple guys with ak47 in an enclosed area where there are absolutely no room for a good strategic defense. Secondly, that MP was a trained police officer not a regular civilian. Military and polices are trained professional dedicating their life handling guns for the sole purpose of saving civilian lives and theirs not the other way around. In a world were everybody would have guns nobody would be able to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys.
Lets say on that same base, before that MP showed up, a civilian guy pulled up his gun and started shooting at the guy with the ak47 but in the process accidentally killed a kid, than the MP shows up. How that MP is supposed to know that the regular guy with the gun is a good guy as well? Yes the MP could accidentally kill that kid too, but at least everybody would know he is the good guy.
This is the heart of the problem which you seem to willfully omit.
You see there is a reason for the police to wear a uniform and to carry a badge. It is to tell us that in a bad situation they are the good guys. At least most of them are
I'm not wrong, my point was that a person with a handgun can in fact stand up to someone with a automatic assault riffle! He did case closed. As for being in a building a Handgun is more maneuverable then an assault riffle.
As for the MP he probably was well trained but that doe not mean most of the people serving in the military are well trained, especially when they are new!
What makes you think a civilian can not be as well trained or better trained? Their is no way to back that up, just as with the military there are people with different skill levels.
-
"On 20 June 1994, Dean Mellberg, an ex-Air Force member, entered the base hospital and shot and killed four people and wounded 23 others.[19] Mellberg recently had been discharged from Cannon AFB, NM as unfit for duty... He traveled to the town of Airway Heights, just outside Fairchild AFB, where he purchased weapons and planned his attack on the base."
This sounds like an awful situation and I feel for the people who were there, but it actually is an excellent example of why we should make it much more difficult for civilians to buy guns. He was kicked out of the military and was able to just drive to a nearby town and come back with weapons of war capable of spraying people with bullets. A very clear example of why we should ban guns like these.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/21/us/gunman-kills-2-and-hurts-19-on-air-force-base.html[/url] ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/21/us/gunman-kills-2-and-hurts-19-on-air-force-base.html[/url])
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Air_Force_Base#1994_shooting_incident[/url] ([url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Air_Force_Base#1994_shooting_incident[/url])
You got it! That's the one, I was off on the year as it's been awhile. He was upset that he was discharged due to mental problems. He should not have been allowed to purchase a gun once he was discharged on Mental Problems.
-
I don't need the constitution to tell me thats its my Human right to protect Myself and Family, I choose to own a gun for that very purpose. If you don't want to own a gun and think that by calling the police or lets say using a baseball bat will save your life or families lives in lets say a home invasion which typically involves two or more thugs who are armed then good luck with that, chances are you would wind up dead.
If you think that by outlawing guns ....
Here's the fundamental problem with arguing gun control. Every comment before this one was about control and regulation. Not banning or outlawing. Yet every single time there's an argument, this is the usual response. They turn it into an all or nothing argument. Own a gun, sure. But nationally, consistently, prove you're not a danger to society first. Yes, criminals will get guns somehow. But if you think that dumb criminals won't get caught more often than not, then really there's no point in discussing this further. I don't understand how making it harder for criminals to get guns can be a bad thing (ie. more regulation).
You can get almost any gun you want here in Canada with a few exceptions. The difference is that nationally you have to jump through more hoops to prove that you can be a responsible gun owner. Why? Because we had a mass shooting and changed the laws to make it harder to get a gun. It works, its proven to work. There will always be murder, but why not try and prevent at least some of them?
Maybe you should ask Obama he is the one that allowed for Fast and Furious giving guns to criminals!
-
When two countries (or any other entities or sides) are at war and you are being fired on, you return fire, you don't care if the guy on the other side has a family, he didn't care if you had. You don't stand and watch or shout "that's wrong!"
I really can't understand a logic where a group of people can fire at other group of people and only one of those groups is entitled to return fire. Police just got a little taste of what they've been doing for a long time and everyone should feel for them? We should be civilized now? Let's talk now, not shoot? Yeah right, tell that to innocent people killed by police, they too have families.
If the police didn't want to get sniped they shouldn't have killed innocent people for fun. Simple as that. If you are policeman and you are innocent and you judge the killing of innocent people, well, step out and say it: "Something in police doesn't work let do something about it" - if you say nothing you as well might be a murderer.
Depends on the case in some instants the cop made the wrong choice, in others the person was reaching for a gun, their are rules and ultimately a cop is going to protect his life if he thinks he is in danger. If the suspect is not following the Cops commands and reaches for a pocket or something then the cop assumes they are armed as it all goes down in a split second. Thats why it's important to follow the cops instructions as they don't know if you are armed weather its a gun or knife. I think unless you have been a cop then you really don't know what they go through and unless you were at a situation you don't really have all the details to make judgement.
-
When two countries (or any other entities or sides) are at war and you are being fired on, you return fire, you don't care if the guy on the other side has a family, he didn't care if you had. You don't stand and watch or shout "that's wrong!"
I really can't understand a logic where a group of people can fire at other group of people and only one of those groups is entitled to return fire. Police just got a little taste of what they've been doing for a long time and everyone should feel for them? We should be civilized now? Let's talk now, not shoot? Yeah right, tell that to innocent people killed by police, they too have families.
If the police didn't want to get sniped they shouldn't have killed innocent people for fun. Simple as that. If you are policeman and you are innocent and you judge the killing of innocent people, well, step out and say it: "Something in police doesn't work let do something about it" - if you say nothing you as well might be a murderer.
So something in police doesn't work, so therefore, let's arm all civilians and declare open war on cops? And while we are at it, let's arm ALL civilians with semi- and automatic weapons, so we can show all the innocent bystanders just who's boss. This war is just like a nuclear war...there are no winners. Everybody dies. Is that what should happen? No. What should happen is EVERYBODY puts down their guns and finds some other solutions to all their hate and ignorance. And even if one side tries to make changes, the other side digs in their heels and is not willing to compromise, kind of like when legislators say they want to put firmer gun control laws and regulations in place, the NRA and followers shout at the top of their lungs NO OUTLAWING OF GUNS. Until both sides are willing to compromise, nothing will change and the violence will continue. :(
The reason for guns is because its the great equalizer, if granny is faced with some huge 22 year old thug
coming into the home who is going to win? Not granny! but with a firearm she stands a chance.
-
Both sides being willing to compromise sounds nice, but what exactly should the side who wants more gun control do to compromise? We've gotten absolutely no concessions from the pro-gun side, who refuse to budge on anything whatsoever. They want terrorists to be able to buy AK47s. People on the no-fly list. People who are kicked out of the military. People who are feeling suicidal or homicidal. People who feel the need to "protect their families" with entire arsenals of weapons. No limits on the number of guns, the clips. No research allowed. No discussion in Congress...they just go on vacation or turn off the cameras.
Small town police forces arm themselves with tanks and military weapons. Cops shoot innocent people of every color to death a few times a day. Mass shootings happen so often it barely makes the news any more.
The pro-gun control side is more reasonable than you'd think reasonable could be. They're so afraid of the Second Amendment they only call for minor concessions--like banning AR-15s for suspected terrorists--that there's no way they'll ask for what we really need, the only thing that will actually make a dent, which is a huge national gun buy back and strict gun controls, which have been put in place by every reasonably civilized country but ours.
Perhaps we should stop describing ourselves as civilized.
There should be licensing and mental evaluation that I can agree with and if we were civilized then yes we would no longer need any weapons but I'm not going to give mine up until everyone does together.
-
I'm not wrong, my point was that a person with a handgun can in fact stand up to someone with a automatic assault riffle! He did case closed.
Case not closed. You failed to make the difference between the two defensive positions for which your argument was based on. One, the incident in France where people were held hostage in an enclosed area surrounded by guys with ak47s which made a surprise defense almost impossible, the other, one single guy with an ak47 coming out of a bldg making himself the perfect target for anybody with a gun.
As for being in a building a Handgun is more maneuverable then an assault riffle.
It won't matter if you are in an enclosed area surrounded with guys with ak47s...you're dead
As for the MP he probably was well trained but that doe not mean most of the people serving in the military are well trained, especially when they are new!
What makes you think a civilian can not be as well trained or better trained? Their is no way to back that up, just as with the military there are people with different skill levels.
Again, you either fail to understand or willfully omit the point. When, everything goes to sh!t, it becomes far more important to be able to differentiate the good guys from the bad ones else training won't matters. If there is one lesson to learn from the Philando Castile death, is the fact that the police did not know that he was a good guy because, one of the reasons, he had a gun.
Think about it. Lets say, one day you go down the street and see a civilian running and shooting at someone. And despite not knowing all the facts, you think this guy is bad. You pull your gun and start running after him. And while you run after him, you realized that this guy is running after another guy shooting at someone. And that someone is running at someone else with a gun too. And just before you get shot in the back, as you come close to an open field, you see a battlefield of people shooting at each others. Do you get it?
-
I don't need the constitution to tell me thats its my Human right to protect Myself and Family, I choose to own a gun for that very purpose. If you don't want to own a gun and think that by calling the police or lets say using a baseball bat will save your life or families lives in lets say a home invasion which typically involves two or more thugs who are armed then good luck with that, chances are you would wind up dead.
If you think that by outlawing guns ....
Here's the fundamental problem with arguing gun control. Every comment before this one was about control and regulation. Not banning or outlawing. Yet every single time there's an argument, this is the usual response. They turn it into an all or nothing argument. Own a gun, sure. But nationally, consistently, prove you're not a danger to society first. Yes, criminals will get guns somehow. But if you think that dumb criminals won't get caught more often than not, then really there's no point in discussing this further. I don't understand how making it harder for criminals to get guns can be a bad thing (ie. more regulation).
You can get almost any gun you want here in Canada with a few exceptions. The difference is that nationally you have to jump through more hoops to prove that you can be a responsible gun owner. Why? Because we had a mass shooting and changed the laws to make it harder to get a gun. It works, its proven to work. There will always be murder, but why not try and prevent at least some of them?
Maybe you should ask Obama he is the one that allowed for Fast and Furious giving guns to criminals!
That makes no sense to anything I posted. If you read my comment, I'm actually "pro gun". But all you see is regulation=banning and get all hysterical about someone breaking into your home. NO ONE SAID BAN GUNS until you said it first. So your arguments are actually a hijack of the thread. Nicely done.
-
People kill people because they like it - and they have a gun handy to make it easier to kill more than one.
-
When two countries (or any other entities or sides) are at war and you are being fired on, you return fire, you don't care if the guy on the other side has a family, he didn't care if you had. You don't stand and watch or shout "that's wrong!"
I really can't understand a logic where a group of people can fire at other group of people and only one of those groups is entitled to return fire. Police just got a little taste of what they've been doing for a long time and everyone should feel for them? We should be civilized now? Let's talk now, not shoot? Yeah right, tell that to innocent people killed by police, they too have families.
If the police didn't want to get sniped they shouldn't have killed innocent people for fun. Simple as that. If you are policeman and you are innocent and you judge the killing of innocent people, well, step out and say it: "Something in police doesn't work let do something about it" - if you say nothing you as well might be a murderer.
So something in police doesn't work, so therefore, let's arm all civilians and declare open war on cops? And while we are at it, let's arm ALL civilians with semi- and automatic weapons, so we can show all the innocent bystanders just who's boss. This war is just like a nuclear war...there are no winners. Everybody dies. Is that what should happen? No. What should happen is EVERYBODY puts down their guns and finds some other solutions to all their hate and ignorance. And even if one side tries to make changes, the other side digs in their heels and is not willing to compromise, kind of like when legislators say they want to put firmer gun control laws and regulations in place, the NRA and followers shout at the top of their lungs NO OUTLAWING OF GUNS. Until both sides are willing to compromise, nothing will change and the violence will continue. :(
No it's not a solution to have a total war, but I just can't judge returning fire, sometimes you have to show a force, especially if you are fighting a mindless force that knows no other way.
-
We need to ban trucks.
-
We need to ban trucks.
In 2015, over 13,000 people has been killed in the United States in 2015 in a gun homicide, unintentional shooting, or murder/suicide.
At least trucks are useful for the world economy and our survival. Can you say the same for a world filled with guns?
-
I'm not wrong, my point was that a person with a handgun can in fact stand up to someone with a automatic assault riffle! He did case closed.
Case not closed. You failed to make the difference between the two defensive positions for which your argument was based on. One, the incident in France where people were held hostage in an enclosed area surrounded by guys with ak47s which made a surprise defense almost impossible, the other, one single guy with an ak47 coming out of a bldg making himself the perfect target for anybody with a gun.
As for being in a building a Handgun is more maneuverable then an assault riffle.
It won't matter if you are in an enclosed area surrounded with guys with ak47s...you're dead
As for the MP he probably was well trained but that doe not mean most of the people serving in the military are well trained, especially when they are new!
What makes you think a civilian can not be as well trained or better trained? Their is no way to back that up, just as with the military there are people with different skill levels.
Again, you either fail to understand or willfully omit the point. When, everything goes to sh!t, it becomes far more important to be able to differentiate the good guys from the bad ones else training won't matters. If there is one lesson to learn from the Philando Castile death, is the fact that the police did not know that he was a good guy because, one of the reasons, he had a gun.
Think about it. Lets say, one day you go down the street and see a civilian running and shooting at someone. And despite not knowing all the facts, you think this guy is bad. You pull your gun and start running after him. And while you run after him, you realized that this guy is running after another guy shooting at someone. And that someone is running at someone else with a gun too. And just before you get shot in the back, as you come close to an open field, you see a battlefield of people shooting at each others. Do you get it?
No two situations are going to be the same, however if you were in France during that attack you would have some sort of chance to defend yourself as compared to none. Terrorists run in with guns shooting, you hit the deck if you are not already dead and pull out your gun and fire back. I'd take those chances as opposed to no gun to fight back with. If you don't get that argument then you frankly have no self survival instinct. I'm not going to give up my natural instinct simply because you have none and want to take away my rights because you believe yours supersede my own. My life matters and so do the ones I love. Your argument convinces me of nothing other then your hell bent determination to bend my will to yours.
As for determining who the bad guys are, that would quickly be determined based on who is shooting who and how. Maybe you are slow on reading situations I don't know, but I think if someone comes in blasting people its obvious there not there to give hugs!
As for the cops showing up, once they do and the threat is being taken care of you put down your weapon or put it away so that you are not seen as a threat.
As for Philando Castile I don't know the details of that situation and was not there so I can't comment on that!
-
I don't need the constitution to tell me thats its my Human right to protect Myself and Family, I choose to own a gun for that very purpose. If you don't want to own a gun and think that by calling the police or lets say using a baseball bat will save your life or families lives in lets say a home invasion which typically involves two or more thugs who are armed then good luck with that, chances are you would wind up dead.
If you think that by outlawing guns ....
Here's the fundamental problem with arguing gun control. Every comment before this one was about control and regulation. Not banning or outlawing. Yet every single time there's an argument, this is the usual response. They turn it into an all or nothing argument. Own a gun, sure. But nationally, consistently, prove you're not a danger to society first. Yes, criminals will get guns somehow. But if you think that dumb criminals won't get caught more often than not, then really there's no point in discussing this further. I don't understand how making it harder for criminals to get guns can be a bad thing (ie. more regulation).
You can get almost any gun you want here in Canada with a few exceptions. The difference is that nationally you have to jump through more hoops to prove that you can be a responsible gun owner. Why? Because we had a mass shooting and changed the laws to make it harder to get a gun. It works, its proven to work. There will always be murder, but why not try and prevent at least some of them?
Maybe you should ask Obama he is the one that allowed for Fast and Furious giving guns to criminals!
That makes no sense to anything I posted. If you read my comment, I'm actually "pro gun". But all you see is regulation=banning and get all hysterical about someone breaking into your home. NO ONE SAID BAN GUNS until you said it first. So your arguments are actually a hijack of the thread. Nicely done.
Sorry I was responding to many people who oppose my statements I misread your post. I do believe there should be metal evaluations as long as the doctors can be unbiased unlike Ginsberg. Otherwise you will get corrupt liberal doctors who hate guns just failing everyone!
-
People kill people because they like it - and they have a gun handy to make it easier to kill more than one.
I carried today when I went out with my entire family to dinner, had pizza and a shake, no one died!
-
We need to ban trucks.
In 2015, over 13,000 people has been killed in the United States in 2015 in a gun homicide, unintentional shooting, or murder/suicide.
At least trucks are useful for the world economy and our survival. Can you say the same for a world filled with guns?
Ban all trucks! we can all use bicycles so that if a terrorist or BLM wants to kill some one they might take out just one person instead of 75 or whatever the final toll will be. As your argument to ban guns is exactly the same irregardless of what other economic pluses a truck might have.
-
did post but you know what completely pointless
-
I'm not wrong, my point was that a person with a handgun can in fact stand up to someone with a automatic assault riffle! He did case closed.
Case not closed. You failed to make the difference between the two defensive positions for which your argument was based on. One, the incident in France where people were held hostage in an enclosed area surrounded by guys with ak47s which made a surprise defense almost impossible, the other, one single guy with an ak47 coming out of a bldg making himself the perfect target for anybody with a gun.
As for being in a building a Handgun is more maneuverable then an assault riffle.
It won't matter if you are in an enclosed area surrounded with guys with ak47s...you're dead
As for the MP he probably was well trained but that doe not mean most of the people serving in the military are well trained, especially when they are new!
What makes you think a civilian can not be as well trained or better trained? Their is no way to back that up, just as with the military there are people with different skill levels.
Again, you either fail to understand or willfully omit the point. When, everything goes to sh!t, it becomes far more important to be able to differentiate the good guys from the bad ones else training won't matters. If there is one lesson to learn from the Philando Castile death, is the fact that the police did not know that he was a good guy because, one of the reasons, he had a gun.
Think about it. Lets say, one day you go down the street and see a civilian running and shooting at someone. And despite not knowing all the facts, you think this guy is bad. You pull your gun and start running after him. And while you run after him, you realized that this guy is running after another guy shooting at someone. And that someone is running at someone else with a gun too. And just before you get shot in the back, as you come close to an open field, you see a battlefield of people shooting at each others. Do you get it?
No two situations are going to be the same, however if you were in France during that attack you would have some sort of chance to defend yourself as compared to none. Terrorists run in with guns shooting, you hit the deck if you are not already dead and pull out your gun and fire back. I'd take those chances as opposed to no gun to fight back with. If you don't get that argument then you frankly have no self survival instinct. I'm not going to give up my natural instinct simply because you have none and want to take away my rights because you believe yours supersede my own. My life matters and so do the ones I love. Your argument convinces me of nothing other then your hell bent determination to bend my will to yours.
As for determining who the bad guys are, that would quickly be determined based on who is shooting who and how. Maybe you are slow on reading situations I don't know, but I think if someone comes in blasting people its obvious there not there to give hugs!
As for the cops showing up, once they do and the threat is being taken care of you put down your weapon or put it away so that you are not seen as a threat.
As for Philando Castile I don't know the details of that situation and was not there so I can't comment on that!
I think the best chance to survive in those situations is to stay still and hope the people with ak47s think you're dead. As soon as you pull your gun out, its likely you would be dead and so would some of the people around you. Is anyone going to be able to shoot a few people with ak47s with the adrenaline pumping? I really don't think its the same as firing at a still target in a shooting range.
-
We need to ban trucks.
In 2015, over 13,000 people has been killed in the United States in 2015 in a gun homicide, unintentional shooting, or murder/suicide.
At least trucks are useful for the world economy and our survival. Can you say the same for a world filled with guns?
You would be surprised at how much money is in the business of making/selling/transporting guns, hence it is good for the economy from business side. That being said, I am not saying that I am for guns. Like I stated in my first post on the subject, the laws should be strict when one is getting a gun.
-
We need to ban trucks.
In 2015, over 13,000 people has been killed in the United States in 2015 in a gun homicide, unintentional shooting, or murder/suicide.
At least trucks are useful for the world economy and our survival. Can you say the same for a world filled with guns?
You would be surprised at how much money is in the business of making/selling/transporting guns, hence it is good for the economy from business side. That being said, I am not saying that I am for guns. Like I stated in my first post on the subject, the laws should be strict when one is getting a gun.
What is the the purpose of having a gun economy at the expense of killing 13,000 people a year? If guns mean getting "protected" than why the US, with more guns per capita than any other industrialized countries, are getting more people killed with guns than any other industrialized countries? What part of that math is so hard to understand?
-
People kill people because they like it - and they have a gun handy to make it easier to kill more than one.
I carried today when I went out with my entire family to dinner, had pizza and a shake, no one died!
I don't feel the need to carry anything other than a phone and a wallet when I go out with my family.
-
We need to ban trucks.
In 2015, over 13,000 people has been killed in the United States in 2015 in a gun homicide, unintentional shooting, or murder/suicide.
At least trucks are useful for the world economy and our survival. Can you say the same for a world filled with guns?
You would be surprised at how much money is in the business of making/selling/transporting guns, hence it is good for the economy from business side. That being said, I am not saying that I am for guns. Like I stated in my first post on the subject, the laws should be strict when one is getting a gun.
What is the the purpose of having a gun economy at the expense of killing 13,000 people a year? If guns mean getting "protected" than why the US, with more guns per capita than any other industrialized countries, are getting more people killed with guns than any other industrialized countries? What part of that math is so hard to understand?
Well here is the thing. For you, me and probably most of the people reading this, there is no math. Someone's life is worth much more than someone's full bank account. That being said, you and I and most of the people reading this, have no saying in this. The guy who is owner of the producing/selling/transporting guns has a say in this but he just does not care. His moral reasoning is probably something along the lines: "I just make the stuff, I am not the one killing people". And to a certain point it is true. Same with the guy that is making trucks or cars or anything that can kill people.
I said it before, where I live, you have to pass the health check, background check, psych eval, test, etc. in order to get a Driver's Licence. It should be same for guns. IMHO, its the ease of legally obtaining the gun that is the problem (that's what we were talking about to begin with). Illegal guns are yet another completely different issue.
-
Illegal guns are part of the same issue. They come from somewhere, and where they come from is private gun owners. Half a million guns are stolen from private owners every year in the U.S. So all those people arming themselves with arsenals to "protect their families" are making the illegal gun trade possible by supplying it with millions and millions of guns that were legally obtained at first.
And, of course, many terrorists around the world use arms manufactured in the USA. The United States is the world's largest exporter of arms, selling almost twice as many arms as Russia, in second place. So our fabulous gun culture extends itself all over the world.
-
Illegal guns are part of the same issue. They come from somewhere, and where they come from is private gun owners. Half a million guns are stolen from private owners every year in the U.S. So all those people arming themselves with arsenals to "protect their families" are making the illegal gun trade possible by supplying it with millions and millions of guns that were legally obtained at first.
And, of course, many terrorists around the world use arms manufactured in the USA. The United States is the world's largest exporter of arms, selling almost twice as many arms as Russia, in second place. So our fabulous gun culture extends itself all over the world.
Agreed. Nobody is saying that all is well. Far from it. I was making a reference to the economic part of it compared to trucks. But saying all these people died from guns and we should ban then is extremely simplified.
Here is what I found: The figures are preliminary estimates from the National Safety Council, which says it currently estimates that last year (read 2015), "38,300 people were killed on U.S. roads, and 4.4 million were seriously injured, meaning 2015 likely was the deadliest driving year since 2008."
Does this mean all cars should be banned? No, of course not. There are idiots who use cars as a tool (transporting people and goods) and there are idiots who do the same thing wile intoxicated, while talking on the phone and driving and not paying attention, applying make up (mostly USA girls) while driving, etc. You get the point. Because of those idiots, should we ban cars? Or take their DL away? Even without the DL, are they guaranteed that they will not drink and drive again?
It is a much more complex situation from stating take the guns away. As much as I am for that, it is simply impossible.
-
Illegal guns are part of the same issue. They come from somewhere, and where they come from is private gun owners. Half a million guns are stolen from private owners every year in the U.S. So all those people arming themselves with arsenals to "protect their families" are making the illegal gun trade possible by supplying it with millions and millions of guns that were legally obtained at first.
And, of course, many terrorists around the world use arms manufactured in the USA. The United States is the world's largest exporter of arms, selling almost twice as many arms as Russia, in second place. So our fabulous gun culture extends itself all over the world.
Agreed. Nobody is saying that all is well. Far from it. I was making a reference to the economic part of it compared to trucks. But saying all these people died from guns and we should ban then is extremely simplified.
Here is what I found: The figures are preliminary estimates from the National Safety Council, which says it currently estimates that last year (read 2015), "38,300 people were killed on U.S. roads, and 4.4 million were seriously injured, meaning 2015 likely was the deadliest driving year since 2008."
Does this mean all cars should be banned? No, of course not. There are idiots who use cars as a tool (transporting people and goods) and there are idiots who do the same thing wile intoxicated, while talking on the phone and driving and not paying attention, applying make up (mostly USA girls) while driving, etc. You get the point. Because of those idiots, should we ban cars? Or take their DL away? Even without the DL, are they guaranteed that they will not drink and drive again?
It is a much more complex situation from stating take the guns away. As much as I am for that, it is simply impossible.
The difference is banning cars would get more people killed due to famine, hypotermia, diseases ect.. due to the country descending into anarchy, total job losses for everybody ect. No more food from the grocery stores, no more heating from your furnace because no one can come and fix it ect.... it is a necessary evil, guns are not
-
Illegal guns are part of the same issue. They come from somewhere, and where they come from is private gun owners. Half a million guns are stolen from private owners every year in the U.S. So all those people arming themselves with arsenals to "protect their families" are making the illegal gun trade possible by supplying it with millions and millions of guns that were legally obtained at first.
And, of course, many terrorists around the world use arms manufactured in the USA. The United States is the world's largest exporter of arms, selling almost twice as many arms as Russia, in second place. So our fabulous gun culture extends itself all over the world.
Agreed. Nobody is saying that all is well. Far from it. I was making a reference to the economic part of it compared to trucks. But saying all these people died from guns and we should ban then is extremely simplified.
Here is what I found: The figures are preliminary estimates from the National Safety Council, which says it currently estimates that last year (read 2015), "38,300 people were killed on U.S. roads, and 4.4 million were seriously injured, meaning 2015 likely was the deadliest driving year since 2008."
Does this mean all cars should be banned? No, of course not. There are idiots who use cars as a tool (transporting people and goods) and there are idiots who do the same thing wile intoxicated, while talking on the phone and driving and not paying attention, applying make up (mostly USA girls) while driving, etc. You get the point. Because of those idiots, should we ban cars? Or take their DL away? Even without the DL, are they guaranteed that they will not drink and drive again?
It is a much more complex situation from stating take the guns away. As much as I am for that, it is simply impossible.
The difference is banning cars would get more people killed due to famine, hypotermia, diseases ect.. due to the country descending into anarchy, total job losses for everybody ect. No more food from the grocery stores, no more heating from your furnace because no one can come and fix it ect.... you get the point
Yes I do but you obviously do not.
Sent from my LG-D605 using Tapatalk
-
Illegal guns are part of the same issue. They come from somewhere, and where they come from is private gun owners. Half a million guns are stolen from private owners every year in the U.S. So all those people arming themselves with arsenals to "protect their families" are making the illegal gun trade possible by supplying it with millions and millions of guns that were legally obtained at first.
And, of course, many terrorists around the world use arms manufactured in the USA. The United States is the world's largest exporter of arms, selling almost twice as many arms as Russia, in second place. So our fabulous gun culture extends itself all over the world.
Agreed. Nobody is saying that all is well. Far from it. I was making a reference to the economic part of it compared to trucks. But saying all these people died from guns and we should ban then is extremely simplified.
Here is what I found: The figures are preliminary estimates from the National Safety Council, which says it currently estimates that last year (read 2015), "38,300 people were killed on U.S. roads, and 4.4 million were seriously injured, meaning 2015 likely was the deadliest driving year since 2008."
Does this mean all cars should be banned? No, of course not. There are idiots who use cars as a tool (transporting people and goods) and there are idiots who do the same thing wile intoxicated, while talking on the phone and driving and not paying attention, applying make up (mostly USA girls) while driving, etc. You get the point. Because of those idiots, should we ban cars? Or take their DL away? Even without the DL, are they guaranteed that they will not drink and drive again?
It is a much more complex situation from stating take the guns away. As much as I am for that, it is simply impossible.
The difference is banning cars would get more people killed due to famine, hypotermia, diseases ect.. due to the country descending into anarchy, total job losses for everybody ect. No more food from the grocery stores, no more heating from your furnace because no one can come and fix it ect.... you get the point
Yes I do but you obviously do not.
Sent from my LG-D605 using Tapatalk
over 10,000 people get killed unecessarily every single year....you don't have a point
-
Illegal guns are part of the same issue. They come from somewhere, and where they come from is private gun owners. Half a million guns are stolen from private owners every year in the U.S. So all those people arming themselves with arsenals to "protect their families" are making the illegal gun trade possible by supplying it with millions and millions of guns that were legally obtained at first.
And, of course, many terrorists around the world use arms manufactured in the USA. The United States is the world's largest exporter of arms, selling almost twice as many arms as Russia, in second place. So our fabulous gun culture extends itself all over the world.
Agreed. Nobody is saying that all is well. Far from it. I was making a reference to the economic part of it compared to trucks. But saying all these people died from guns and we should ban then is extremely simplified.
Here is what I found: The figures are preliminary estimates from the National Safety Council, which says it currently estimates that last year (read 2015), "38,300 people were killed on U.S. roads, and 4.4 million were seriously injured, meaning 2015 likely was the deadliest driving year since 2008."
Does this mean all cars should be banned? No, of course not. There are idiots who use cars as a tool (transporting people and goods) and there are idiots who do the same thing wile intoxicated, while talking on the phone and driving and not paying attention, applying make up (mostly USA girls) while driving, etc. You get the point. Because of those idiots, should we ban cars? Or take their DL away? Even without the DL, are they guaranteed that they will not drink and drive again?
It is a much more complex situation from stating take the guns away. As much as I am for that, it is simply impossible.
The difference is banning cars would get more people killed due to famine, hypotermia, diseases ect.. due to the country descending into anarchy, total job losses for everybody ect. No more food from the grocery stores, no more heating from your furnace because no one can come and fix it ect.... you get the point
Yes I do but you obviously do not.
Sent from my LG-D605 using Tapatalk
over 10,000 people get killed unecessarily every single year....you don't have a point
Ok. Read how many die in car accidents. And then twll me who doesnt have a point.
Sent from my LG-D605 using Tapatalk
-
Illegal guns are part of the same issue. They come from somewhere, and where they come from is private gun owners. Half a million guns are stolen from private owners every year in the U.S. So all those people arming themselves with arsenals to "protect their families" are making the illegal gun trade possible by supplying it with millions and millions of guns that were legally obtained at first.
And, of course, many terrorists around the world use arms manufactured in the USA. The United States is the world's largest exporter of arms, selling almost twice as many arms as Russia, in second place. So our fabulous gun culture extends itself all over the world.
Agreed. Nobody is saying that all is well. Far from it. I was making a reference to the economic part of it compared to trucks. But saying all these people died from guns and we should ban then is extremely simplified.
Here is what I found: The figures are preliminary estimates from the National Safety Council, which says it currently estimates that last year (read 2015), "38,300 people were killed on U.S. roads, and 4.4 million were seriously injured, meaning 2015 likely was the deadliest driving year since 2008."
Does this mean all cars should be banned? No, of course not. There are idiots who use cars as a tool (transporting people and goods) and there are idiots who do the same thing wile intoxicated, while talking on the phone and driving and not paying attention, applying make up (mostly USA girls) while driving, etc. You get the point. Because of those idiots, should we ban cars? Or take their DL away? Even without the DL, are they guaranteed that they will not drink and drive again?
It is a much more complex situation from stating take the guns away. As much as I am for that, it is simply impossible.
The difference is banning cars would get more people killed due to famine, hypotermia, diseases ect.. due to the country descending into anarchy, total job losses for everybody ect. No more food from the grocery stores, no more heating from your furnace because no one can come and fix it ect.... you get the point
Yes I do but you obviously do not.
Sent from my LG-D605 using Tapatalk
over 10,000 people get killed unecessarily every single year....you don't have a point
Ok. Read how many die in car accidents. And then twll me who doesnt have a point.
Sent from my LG-D605 using Tapatalk
Cars are a necessary evil, what I mean by "necessary evil" is banning it would caused more death than having it, (read my previous post.)
Guns are not a necessay evil as banning most of it from the civilian population would decrease the death toll not increasing it as demonstrated in other countries
-
you have to pass the health check, background check, psych eval, test, etc. in order to get a Driver's Licence. It should be same for guns.
I agree 100%. You also have to register your vehicle and provide proof of insurance. It should be the same for guns. How could anybody be opposed to that?
-
I carried today when I went out with my entire family to dinner, had pizza and a shake, no one died!
If I felt I needed to take a gun with me to go get pizza I would stay home or move. You either live in a very dangerous place or suffer from some serious paranoia.
-
I carried today when I went out with my entire family to dinner, had pizza and a shake, no one died!
If I felt I needed to take a gun with me to go get pizza I would stay home or move. You either live in a very dangerous place or suffer from some serious paranoia.
You never know what is going to happen. Not that I ever hope something like this will happen or do I worry that it will happen. When I am backpacking and carry a first aid kit, am I paranoid that I am going to get hurt and need to use it? No.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20160712-robber-with-ak-47-shot-by-waffle-house-customer-desoto-police-say.ece (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20160712-robber-with-ak-47-shot-by-waffle-house-customer-desoto-police-say.ece)
I do suggest that people who carry have extra training other than at the range. There are specific intense training environments that are available to the public. Once you are in this type of situation several things kick in such as stress, need to read the situation, and heart rate through the roof. Proper training will help you prepare for this type of situation but you never know how you will react until it happens to you. Proper training will also include the mental and physiological aspect of pulling your weapon and having to use it.
-
When I am backpacking and carry a first aid kit, am I paranoid that I am going to get hurt and need to use it? No.
No, of course not - you don't think Mother Nature is out to get you. Paranoia does not apply to nature. Someone carrying a gun into a public place does it because they think they might need it - they think someone else might try to harm them, almost the definition of paranoid (unless of course someone actually does want to harm them, in which case wouldn't they stay home?).
I do suggest that people who carry have extra training other than at the range. There are specific intense training environments that are available to the public. Once you are in this type of situation several things kick in such as stress, need to read the situation, and heart rate through the roof. Proper training will help you prepare for this type of situation but you never know how you will react until it happens to you. Proper training will also include the mental and physiological aspect of pulling your weapon and having to use it.
Yes, I agree completely. That is all very reasonable and exactly why we should leave it to the professionals - I suspect very few gun owners make the time to take this kind of training or take it as seriously as you do.