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.
There are good ways to stop a burglar before he infiltrates into a house: strong walls, high fence and ... angry dogs!
If a host takes care of passive defense of a building he needn't use the active defense and shoot at the people.
If you don't want to see a cloud of flies and wasps over sweet pie cover it with a big and heavy pan!
Sure, there are additional precautions one could take. Except when those obstacles of course are overcome. Remember, that privacy fence, locks, alarm systems, whatever.... are for your safety.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyborgt800
Since the FBI says that 80-90% of all murders are committed by a prior felon, logic would be for you to immediately keep ALL felons off the street before attempting to disarm law abiding citizens. Want to eliminate 80-90% of all murders? There you go!...
The FBI says 91% of all murders are committed by males and 88% are committed by persons under the age of 40. Seems like we could solve a whole lot of problems here by keeping guns out of the hands of males under 40. We don't let people drive until 16, vote until 18, or drink until 21. Maybe males born since 1975 should simply be barred from owning weapons.
LOL yes, that's true...but let me fix your statement for you:
The FBI says 91% of all murders are committed by males THAT ARE PRIOR VIOLENT FELONS and 88% are committed by PRIOR VIOLENT FELONS under the age of 40. Seems like we could solve a whole lot of problems here by keeping males THAT ARE PRIOR VIOLENT FELONS under 40 off the streets. We don't let people drive until 16, vote until 18, or drink until 21. Maybe males born since 1975 THAT ARE PRIOR VIOLENT FELONS should simply be barred from owning weapons.
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.
I'm glad you didn't get to write the bill of rights that's for sure. You're basing your opinion of why should anyone have a gun or only a priviledged few should. A few minority of whacked out idiots who cannot deal with society grab a gun and lash out therefore anyone who has a gun us gonna do the same. Why are you correlating the ownership of a gun to automatically killing people? I have guns. So what? I'm not going to go out and start blasting people because voices told me to or my parents didn't get me everything I wanted as a kid or a cheerleader said no when I asked her out after I built a shrine in her honor inside her school locker. Know why? Because I'm sane and have the ability to control myself. Without resorting to a gun and using it violently. Just because I get upset about something doesn't mean I'm gonna go and shotgun a bus full of nuns as my revenge method.
Someone wants to have guns? Let them. What I would do is make a crime with a gun a lifetime sentence. No appeal. Make the use of a gun in any criminal way so damn austere that you won't want to do it.
But then again I also think you should be able to carry a gun with no permit or approval.
Plenty of people verbally irreparably harm others with nothing more than words. In fact plenty of kids go home and kill themselves over verbal abuse. I dont see anyone screaming to remove the right to free speech.
Have you personally spent a material amount of time in the 'city that care forgot'?
Reason I ask, is that I have a very intimate relationship with the city;
(having been brought up there, not to mention the continuing regular visitation schedule...)
and can talk to the talking point you bring up...
of course, this discussion would probably be best explored in it's own thread.
you keep mentioning harm reduction, as seemingly your primary concern.
That being said, why do you and other's claiming the ultimate goal of harm reduction, not pursue a potentially much more material reduction in harm for society at large?
say for instance the consumption rate in America of refined sugar and flour, the lack of exercise, & lack of personal focused cardiovascular care that seemingly contribute significantly to heart disease, diabetes, etc etc etc rates here in the US...
it seems to me that these sorts of maladies contribute significantly more harm upon society as a whole than firearms...
it seems to me, that if harm reduction was really the goal, that much more time and effort would be focused on figuring out both how and why our food and consumption system apparently are detrimenting our populace, as a whole....
wouldn't the largest death factors be first in line for reduction, if harm reduction was truly the goal in mind?
Worrying about the above concerns is now pointless, as Agenda 2030 will determine not only which firearms you can carry (none), but also what kinds of food you'll eat, and how much of you it can take away from the grocery store, and what medical care you *really* need, and whether or not you *deserve* to be here at all (as in, do you contribute to society).
Fully 90% of the world's population will have been eradicated by the year 2030, and this is not a conspiracy theory.
As I mentioned in another thread, for those of you who have not yet read Agenda 2030 in its entirety -- it's about a two-hour read -- you ought to. Many of the threads now under discussion here on CD, will be pointless when Agenda 2030 takes effect on January 1st, 2016. You can read it in a variety of forms by Googling it.
I am of the opinion that to be effective, focus is needed. it seems to me, that the notion of "Harm Reduction" (as it relates to firearms singularly) is being tossed around, primarily by you, as a concept worthy of any inputs and efforts expended, but that the actual reduction of harm isn't candidly/privately the true goal desired... otherwise, efforts would be focused elsewhere on the potential 'harm reduction' materiality scale.
In other words, you have fallen flat for the transparent NRA propaganda meme that all efforts to reduce gun damage are actually efforts to take away your guns in disguise. Also you have paid no attention to broad-based efforts to reduce harm on hundreds of other fronts all across society.
I'll take that as a no, that you cannot post the link to prove your claim that 95% of DGUs never happened. Noted.
Old Chinese proverb: Do not expect to be educated by your betters. Expect to learn from them.
Meanwhile, I have already handed you the source and the data within it to search for. You have only to lift a finger to go examine it for yourself. But you won't.
There are good ways to stop a burglar before he infiltrates into a house: strong walls, high fence and ... angry dogs!
Serious doors and locks. Home security systems. Security lighting connected to motion-sensors. Bars over first-story windows. Ladders kept out of sight. Call your insurance company and ask for other ideas.
LOL yes, that's true...but let me fix your statement for you:
No repairs were necessary. The data were correct as originally posted. They were simple Bureau of Justice Statistics breakdowns of convicted murderers by age and gender. 91% of convicted murderers are male. 88% are under the age of 40. Moderator cut: Personal Attack
Serious doors and locks. Home security systems. Security lighting connected to motion-sensors. Bars over first-story windows. Ladders kept out of sight. Call your insurance company and ask for other ideas.
Then when it still happens, which it can, blame the victim. You shouldn't be wearing short skirts girl.
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.
