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.
My guns and I have never harmed anyone. Millions of law-abiding gun owners across America can say the same.
Only as of the moment. This very day, many of your so-called law-abiders will miraculously turn into first-time gun-criminals, while many of the stolen guns they used to own will be used by their new owners to inflict more death and mayhem upon society. There isn't a plus side of all this for you to point to. No matter how you slice it, people are dying and suffering grievous injuries because of you and your guns.
It's not as if anyone argues that guns get up by themselves and shoot people. Many of us just don't see a reason why so many people need to have the ability to kill people so easily and so MANY of them (as you can with a gun).
As most of us know, there was a recent attack in China on elementary school kids which left 22 wounded. If the guy had a gun, it would have been like Newton, CT. Sure, a knife can also kill (happened in China a few yrs ago), but in general, it takes longer and is harder (which would give others time to stop the attacker).
I really don't see why anyone, other than the cops and military, should have the ability to STOCK UP on guns and ammunition. Sure, I can see having a single gun if you live in a city/suburb if you're scared in your home and maybe a few if you live in a rural area....even in those scenarios, no one really needs to have a gun that can fire many times before re-loading. And only a tiny fraction of people need to be able to have like more than 10 bullets at any given time. I live in TX, a totally gun loving state, which was a bit of a culture shock. I see no reason why people I know should have multiple guns as a HOBBY.
You seem to forget, bombs kill more. Remember Oklahoma City? 33 kids were killed along with the other 135 and 600 were wounded....the point is, there are many, many ways to kill exponential more quicker. And noooooooooooo one is getting a lease on blasting explosives. Besides, you can make some yourself.
Eliminating weapons will only encourage those who seek to harm ever more creative and even more lethal, if you can believe it, to kill. Some use bombs....some use mailbox bombs and then some use planes.
You are chasing the wrong solution. Go to YouTube and SEE folks who have defended someone with a gun and won. Think convenience stores.....go to YouTube...google "bad guy gets owned" or something similar...there are HUNDREDS of no BS, on camera "reviews". Obviously, I'm pro gun but, no one ever wants to talk about the lives SAVED by LAW ABIDING gun owners and the families saved therein.
Spend your time on solving the murders in Chicago between gang members. The same kids that wipe out an elementary school will find a way to do it. Period. My bigger fear will be that perhaps, maaaaaybe there will be fewer but, they will become much, much, much more deadly. Bombs are simply devastating and in some cases, CHEAPER to make than acquiring firearms and ammo.
Chasing the wrong thing. Go after the mentally impaired. Fund the treatment. That's where your problem lies. The medium(s) used are irrelevant. Fix those that need fixing. And while you won't catch them all, right now we hardly even try.
Frankly, I feel safer with more armed folks. And I'm one of them. I'm also confident enough to use it to save even you. If not me, who? The police are reactive. Not their fault, they can't be everywhere all the time, can they? You have to learn to defend yourself as you are probably the only one you can rely on?
Kennesaw Georgia has a law that mandates every home owner has a gun in the house. While it's impossible to enforce it HAS had a positive effect. They enjoy one of the lowest violent crime rates in the US. Accident? Hardly. Criminals will never obey laws. Weakening those who do only encourages their continued bad behavior. Let them know that you may not be as easy of a victim as they think and they will look for easier hunting grounds.
If it comes down to some thug looking to hurt a woman and minivan full of kids, brother, he's going down.
What a wonderful idea! I can't imagine why no one thought of that before!
You of course refer to the right to put themselves at additional risk.
Yep! And again harsher punishments for those who use a gun to commit a violent crime! No parole! PERIOD! Maximum sentences! If you're found guilty and convicted of a violent crime, you do the crime you do the time! Start cracking down on those who commit the crimes using a gun, and while it won't get rid of all crime, it certainly will make people think twice. You call it draconian. I call it a deterrent. I know it sucks, right? Because it doesn't feed into the progressive mindset that everyone is a victim, or it is never the individual's fault, but the fault of others! Too freakin' bad!
To your second statement, life is full of risks. We put ourselves at risk everyday by stepping out of the house. I could get in a serious car wreck, or step off the curb and get hit by a bus. So what should we do? Live in a bubble. Furthermore, with proper training, and handling of a firearm by you or other members in your household, there is no additional risk. If you have children and a gun in the house that means you teach them the following... a gun is not a toy... assume that any gun is loaded (even if it is not).... and more importantly KEEP YOUR DAMN HANDS OFF OF SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T BELONG TO YOU!!!! It worked for me growing up. There is no reason that it CANNOT work for kids today, so long as parents actually be parents! Between my step dad and step brothers we had plenty of guns in the house. I knew early on not to touch what wasn't mine without permission! Again, it comes down to parents being parents. At any rate, I'm not willing to sacrifice more liberty in exchange for more security, because those who are willing to do so deserve neither.
And there you have the crux of the issue: mental defectives who nowadays instead of being institutionalized like they were until the mid 80s, are now free to circulate among us and wreak havoc.
While Reagan was indeed a massive defunder of mental health programs, the trend away from state-run, in-patient hospitals to community-based, out-patient clinics was already well underway by the late 1960's. Drug companies were fresh off their antibiotic triumphs and saw big-time dollar signs in marketing sedatives and tranquilizers as cures for mental illness. Politicians saw an excuse for tax savings, and we ended up with another unholy alliance of right-wing motivators that did not work out well for society. But it doesn't answer the gun problem. The fact that gun-nuts retroactively brand every new gun-criminal as a mental defective does not pave any way forward toward actual harm reduction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo
We don't see drunk driving as an automobile problem.
No, we see it as a revenue engine. Perhaps we should do the same with guns. Get found with a gun in public, you lose your license for it, get stuck with a few days in jail, and get hit with thousands of dollars worth of fines and costs for dubious rehabilitation services. Cool. At least for a first offense.
While Reagan was indeed a massive defunder of mental health programs, the trend away from state-run, in-patient hospitals to community-based, out-patient clinics was already well underway by the late 1960's. Drug companies were fresh off their antibiotic triumphs and saw big-time dollar signs in marketing sedatives and tranquilizers as cures for mental illness. Politicians saw an excuse for tax savings, and we ended up with another unholy alliance of right-wing motivators that did not work out well for society. But it doesn't answer the gun problem. The fact that gun-nuts retroactively brand every new gun-criminal as a mental defective does not pave any way forward toward actual harm reduction.
No, we see it as a revenue engine. Perhaps we should do the same with guns. Get found with a gun in public, you lose your license for it, get stuck with a few days in jail, and get hit with thousands ofdollars worth of fines and costs for dubious rehabilitation services. Cool. At least for a first offense.
First off, you don't NEED a license to own a gun! It is a right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution! It is NOT a privilege! Secondly, what are you going to do about those who have a conceal carry permit? They are allowed to carry in public where it is permitted. Which I find idiotic that one needs a permit to carry, when it is already guaranteed right in the Constitution! At any rate, are you going to advocate jail for something they are already allowed to do? So long as you are not a convicted felon you should be able to exercise that right. On the other hand, commit a crime with a gun, and get convicted of it, then get the book thrown at you! Use it in self-defense (which is the only reason one should do so... that and in defense of your family, and property) no issue. Secondly, what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
Yep! And again harsher punishments for those who use a gun to commit a violent crime!
We already have that. That's why Gun Free Zones exist -- so that an extra penalty can be piled on top for gun-toters. What you still haven't managed to realize of course is that this isn't Hollywood, and most gun-damage is actually the result of impulsive, spur-of-the-moment actions, not planned-out, premeditated capers and crime sprees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan
No parole! PERIOD! Maximum sentences! If you're found guilty and convicted of a violent crime, you do the crime you do the time! Start cracking down on those who commit the crimes using a gun, and while it won't get rid of all crime, it certainly will make people think twice.
It hasn't worked and it won't. As long as those who need to resort to crime also need top resort to guns for their own protection, lots of people will be killed and grievously wounded as the result of no one's planning at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan
To your second statement, life is full of risks.
That's a reason not to try to reduce some of the worst ones? Get real, dude!.
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan
Furthermore, with proper training, and handling of a firearm by you or other members in your household, there is no additional risk.
LOL! That's freakishly misinformed. Proximity to a gun greatly amplifies the risks you run regardless of who has had what sort of training.
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan
I'm not willing to sacrifice more liberty in exchange for more security, because those who are willing to do so deserve neither.
Yay for garbled empty internet homilies and bromides!
We don't see drunk driving as an automobile problem.
We don't address it as such.
Food for thought.
yeah, because drunk people aren't using cars to intentionally kill others. what are you even talking about?
you could say the same about any object, even a stick or a pencil, but the difference between those and a gun is that guns are made to kill. a pencil isn't!
First off, you don't NEED a license to own a gun! It is a right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution! It is NOT a privilege!
You need a permit to march in the streets. You need a permit to upgrade your home. You need a license to operate a nails salon. The degrees of freedom you suppose to exist in society are grossly at odds with reality. Heller and McDonald leave a wide berth for the regulation of guns and gun ownership. Your brand new individual right is still a quite narrowly tailored one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan
Secondly, what are you going to do about those who have a conceal carry permit? They are allowed to carry in public where it is permitted.
I thought it was plain enough in the earlier that such laws would be rescinded and replaced with new laws capable of raising way more revenue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan
Secondly, what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
Maybe you should ask Justice Scalia, since he went on and on about the various forms of infringing that would compatlble with his poorly thought out opinion.
Bottom line once again is that you DO NOT HAVE the rights you foolishly think you have.
We already have that. That's why Gun Free Zones exist -- so that an extra penalty can be piled on top for gun-toters. What you still haven't managed to realize of course is that this isn't Hollywood, and most gun-damage is actually the result of impulsive, spur-of-the-moment actions, not planned-out, premeditated capers and crime sprees.
You're acting as if we're having shootouts on every street corner, when it is only in certain segments of the country, and that is mostly in the inner-cities. Not to mention that mass shootings while they have happened, are still not the norm, and still quite rare. Stop watching the damn liberal media, and think for yourself for once!
It hasn't worked and it won't. As long as those who need to resort to crime also need top resort to guns for their own protection, lots of people will be killed and grievously wounded as the result of no one's planning at all.
How do you know? At any rate, at least it would rid society of criminal scum once and for all, who keep getting paroled, released, and go back to committing more crimes. Meanwhile, logically thinking individuals will still continue to be productive and contributing members of society.
That's a reason not to try to reduce some of the worst ones? Get real, dude!.
You are only responsible for you. I am dealing in reality. Perhaps you should try it some time.
LOL! That's freakishly misinformed. Proximity to a gun greatly amplifies the risks you run regardless of who has had what sort of training.
Yet here I sit, with numerous firearms in my house growing up, free of ever having a gunshot wound, or have one accidentally go off, because I knew enough about guns and how to practice good safety around them. I recently taught my son how to shoot (my buddy taught his son when he was 6). I will continue to enforce firearm safety with him, of what to do, and what not to do.
Yay for garbled empty internet homilies and bromides!
Except that isn't garbled empty internet homilies. That phrase has been around well before the internet. I'm sorry individual liberty and freedom scares you so much. Reynald, I'm afraid guns and the right to bear arms are not going anywhere in this country, so unless you are personally going to be one those going door to door in this country to try and confiscate them, it is just more BS rhetoric. Good luck though!........
You need a permit to march in the streets. You need a permit to upgrade your home. You need a license to operate a nails salon. The degrees of freedom you suppose to exist in society are grossly at odds with reality. Heller and McDonald leave a wide berth for the regulation of guns and gun ownership. Your brand new individual right is still a quite narrowly tailored one.
A permit is nothing more than an excuse for the government to get revenue. Why do I need to ask for permission to peacefully assemble in the right to protest? Keyword peacefully, and not the violence we saw in Ferguson and Baltimore. Why do I need a permit to upgrade my home, or put another structure on my property? It is a racket!
I thought it was plain enough in the earlier that such laws would be rescinded and replaced with new laws capable of raising way more revenue.
Yep. Further expanding government in our lives, under the guise of creating new revenue. Why do you feel that more government, and more laws are the answer for everything?
Maybe you should ask Justice Scalia, since he went on and on about the various forms of infringing that would compatlble with his poorly thought out opinion.
Bottom line once again is that you DO NOT HAVE the rights you foolishly think you have.
That is because progressives continue to treat the Constitution like an outdated rag!
Oh... and to address your gun free zone reference in the previous post... Where do most gun crimes such as armed robberies and mass shootings happen? In places designated as gun free zones. Now those who conceal carry and other law abiding gun owners may obey those signs, but again we all know criminals don't obey the law, And being the cowardly lowlifes that they are will always seek out the most vulnerable and easiest places, because they know people are perceived to be defenseless! So since we're talking about signs, what sign do you think is more of a deterrent "this is a gun-free zone" or the sign that says something along the lines of "due to the increase in the cost of ammo, we will no longer be firing a warning shot." Now, it may not be a 100% deterrent, but it will make anyone with an ounce of common sense think twice.
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.
........