Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to live in a less crime-ridden state than Florida instead of living in a place that has to have state-wide laws like that?
Ahh yeah, a place Chicago & Detroit maybe? Some of the strongest and most intrusive gun laws on the books. Yet, interestingly the most gun crime too.
Except for a few places in Fla, such as Liberty City in Miami or neighborhoods with any street named after MLK, there is very little gun violence to worry about.
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to live in a less crime-ridden state than Florida instead of living in a place that has to have state-wide laws like that?
It's not about having to have the laws, it's about the God given right of free citizens to protect themselves and their castle from invaders wishing to do them harm. Some states laws' are so ridiculous that you basically have to get shot before you can begin to defend yourself.
I don't see that as okay, the laws are basically giving criminals an advantage over law abiding citizens who actually contribute to society. Same goes for super strict gun control laws (like not allowing magazines over 5 rounds, not allowing pistols, not allowing the scary looking black evil semi automatic rifles). All those laws do is make it harder for law abiding folk to defend themselves, because you can be sure that criminals are ignoring the law.
Home invasions can happen ANYWHERE. In ANY state. Go check out Chicago, super tight gun laws yet gun violence is through the roof. The reason? Criminals don't follow laws. Imagine that.
First, "football" (soccer) is far more popular than rugby in the Western world. However, the argument about the violence in sports is indeed non-sense since all sports can be subject to it. It all depends of the players.
And second, I am certain your educated decision made you realize that since the main issue is mental for most criminals, you would require all gun owners pass a psychic test every single year (if not a month) to make sure they never ever have the idea to point a gun to innocent people in the streets, including children. Else wise, there is no way a firearm could become a net positive on society. Which society would welcome a nervous guy shooting another one in a theatre over texting?!?
I believe many of those you call "liberals" do want to ban guns in order to make sure a crazy person does not come and shoot them. I think this is fair.
Seriously?! You think it's fair to take away a constitutional right just so that a percentage of the population feels (but isn't actually) safe from "crazies" attacking them? Crazies who want to kill will do it one way or another. They make home made bombs, they buy swords, knives. History is full of such examples.
You can't outlaw crazy. But you can (attempt to) outlaw sane law abiding folk from being able to properly defend themselves against said crazies. Why anyone would do that is beyond my ability to comprehend, it's the definition of stupid in my book.
Haven't you ever noticed that the crazies who go on shooting sprees tend to do so in known "safe zones"? Like schools.... gun free movie theaters.... and that almost all of these crazies either kill themselves or surrender at the first sign of a fight?
Not too long ago in Seattle all the lib-tards started a gun free zone movement among businesses, who all put stickers on their front doors marketing their "gun free establishments". Guess what happened next? They all started getting robbed. The stickers quietly were taken back down.
How is it a good idea then, to make everywhere a "safe zone"?
Forcing all gun owners to undergo psychological evaluation on a routine basis is insane, and totally a infringement on people's rights. Legal gun owners are not a significant problem, please get that through your thick head. The percentage of lawful gun owners who "gun down children and other innocents in the streets" is so insanely low that it's not even worth a discussion, let alone a blanket ban on guns or required psych evaluations on a monthly basis.
Seriously?! You think it's fair to take away a constitutional right just so that a percentage of the population feels (but isn't actually) safe from "crazies" attacking them? Crazies who want to kill will do it one way or another. They make home made bombs, they buy swords, knives. History is full of such examples.
You can't outlaw crazy. But you can (attempt to) outlaw sane law abiding folk from being able to properly defend themselves against said crazies. Why anyone would do that is beyond my ability to comprehend, it's the definition of stupid in my book.
Haven't you ever noticed that the crazies who go on shooting sprees tend to do so in known "safe zones"? Like schools.... gun free movie theaters.... and that almost all of these crazies either kill themselves or surrender at the first sign of a fight?
Not too long ago in Seattle all the lib-tards started a gun free zone movement among businesses, who all put stickers on their front doors marketing their "gun free establishments". Guess what happened next? They all started getting robbed. The stickers quietly were taken back down.
How is it a good idea then, to make everywhere a "safe zone"?
Forcing all gun owners to undergo psychological evaluation on a routine basis is insane, and totally a infringement on people's rights. Legal gun owners are not a significant problem, please get that through your thick head. The percentage of lawful gun owners who "gun down children and other innocents in the streets" is so insanely low that it's not even worth a discussion, let alone a blanket ban on guns or required psych evaluations on a monthly basis.
Bombs are not allowed, nor swords. So if they get them, they would get them in a black market, and not easily: that's the first step of prevention. And if someone gets them, it should trigger an alert.
Knives have never created a big shooting. At best, the guy can kill one or two people. With guns, even by mistake, these guys can kill much more, regardless of who is in front of them, with or without guns.
Forcing people to pass regular exams is totally understandable: it's the same as for a driving license. Do you let everyone drive a car if it was a constitutional right? Probably not, due to the danger. It's the same rational here.
The only point that is worth is that the more you make gun ownership difficult, the more the crazy criminals will not be able to get them as easily as it is nowadays. Please. Get. That.
The only point that is worth is that the more you make gun ownership difficult, the more the crazy criminals will not be able to get them as easily as it is nowadays. Please. Get. That.
LOL. The places in the USA with the most gun crime, have the most restrictive gun laws. See Chicago.
This is your logic.
Criminals Break Laws
Pass More Laws to Stop Criminals.
Gun laws much more restrictive than in anywhere in the USA didn't stop those guys who shot up Paris last week.
Bombs are not allowed, nor swords. So if they get them, they would get them in a black market, and not easily: that's the first step of prevention. And if someone gets them, it should trigger an alert.
Knives have never created a big shooting. At best, the guy can kill one or two people. With guns, even by mistake, these guys can kill much more, regardless of who is in front of them, with or without guns.
Forcing people to pass regular exams is totally understandable: it's the same as for a driving license. Do you let everyone drive a car if it was a constitutional right? Probably not, due to the danger. It's the same rational here.
The only point that is worth is that the more you make gun ownership difficult, the more the crazy criminals will not be able to get them as easily as it is nowadays. Please. Get. That.
Driving licenses are a single test, for life. We don't even make super old people get re-evaluated, we just let them pilot around 4,000 pound balls of metal on our streets, wrecking havoc, killing a lot of people every single year. 'Merica man, if you don't like it, don't live here. I love it, I ride a motorcycle around all these maniacs every day, 30% of them are not emotionally stable enough to be piloting a car.
I said home made bombs. By definition they aren't something that is bought. The Boston Marathon bombs were poorly made and still injured a ton of people, thank god they weren't legit bombs or a hundred+ people would've died.
In 1927 a disgruntled farmer blew up a school, killing 38 elementary kids. It's the worst school attack in the history of the US. Like I said, crazy people will find a way. Just be thankful modern school shooters choose guns and not bombs (actually, the Columbine shooters planted bombs but they didn't work).
Not to mention Israel solved their school attack problem (which was worse then ours) by arming teachers. When the NRA dude brought that up (he did a terrible job by the way, he's such a bad spokesperson) he got absolutely blasted for it. He was right though, it's a solution to the problem that actually works. Crazies are gunna be crazy, on the most fundamental level the adults that are in schools every day have to be able to protect the kids in the moment a shooting happens. If even one full classroom of kids doesn't have a armed teacher, there could be dozens of deaths before the "security guard" could get there, let alone the police. If crazies are gunna use guns (which are impossible to "do away with" at this point), the teachers need to have equal force to stand a chance at saving the children's lives. Totally logical solution.
The only point that is worth is that the more you make gun ownership difficult, the more the crazy criminals will not be able to get them as easily as it is nowadays. Please. Get. That.
Please explain to us how drug users get heroine or meth basically at will as long as they have money.
Were you not aware that it's illegal to buy, sell, consume, import, export, manufacture, possess or transport those drugs, but they are all over the streets?
What makes guns different, other than dogs can't smell them and any competent machinist can make them?
Please explain to us how drug users get heroine or meth basically at will as long as they have money.
Were you not aware that it's illegal to buy, sell, consume, import, export, manufacture, possess or transport those drugs, but they are all over the streets?
What makes guns different, other than dogs can't smell them and any competent machinist can make them?
This is a pretty falacious position, too.
There is almost nothing that can be done to stop the relentlessly dedicated individual with patience and planning. See Marvin Heemayer. Nothing you can do to stop that guy. If he wants to cause havoc, he will find a way to cause havoc.
The 'control' argument rests on the extremely simple premise that even though some people will break the law, even though one can never have absolute control over a black market, the casual availability of certain things is incredibly dangerous.
Its why we no longer permit the free sale of explosives even though theoretically anyone can make explosives if they're really dedicated to doing it.
The problem with the United States that makes us completely incomparable to any other country on the gun issue is that our firearm availability situation is so unfathomably high (and they are all so totally unaccounted for) that they're just an inexorable part of our reality and no 'law' is ever going to change that. Anti gun ideologues are imbeciles when they compare us to Japan or England. Its like comparing the puddle at the end of your driveway to the Pacific Ocean. Pro gun ideologues are imbeciles when they make false equivalency arguments about guns and swimming pools, or that we should go ahead and sell cyanide over the counter because regulations will be broken thus are pointless, failing to acknowledge the very unique properties inherent to firearms that make them very different from other objects that could be coopted for misuse.
I can play a terrorist in a movie, does that mean in real life I must support them?
Some of the points here about Neeson being a hypocrite are utterly ridiculous! Yes, he plays action heroes - He is an ACTOR. His characters are NOT him. Is that so hard to grasp?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
