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.
how sad the shooter's lawyer says ""He is not a gun-toting rights activist who's saying, 'Keep off my property,'"
Hi Renault why "Americans have had more access to guns in generations past " do you think this? I mean what stats or anecdotal knowledge makes you think this?
In my experience that is flipped. I have never seen more access than the past 20 years.
thx
In the 1930s you could go to the hardware store, and pick up a tommy gun, and a box of ammo for a song, and now a days I get paged to the back of the store so my brother could use my I.D. to get a box of BBs.
What does that have to do with gun slingers shooting people willy nilly just because someone happens to be on their property? Do you know what I remember? When I was a kid & we cut through people's yards every day, while playing, going home, whatever & no one ever had to worry about ole Stable Mable's trigger happy fingers. Not so today, the level of paranoia is ridiculous. Shoot first, ask questions later.
Keep in mind that the old man had threatened the homeowners with a sword.
Oh, that didn't happen? Well, neither did your scenario. You might want to actually read what happen instead of trying to make up the facts to fit your argument.
Oh please, the majority of these stories are crazy gun nuts slobbering over their guns just itching to pull the trigger first, ask questions later. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
Sounds like fear has taken over your emotions and clouded your judgement. In reality , the majority of legal and responsible firearms owners hope and pray they never have to use their guns on another human. Do the math on just legal concealed carry holders. Just do some research and see actually how many there are and how many are probably around you .. if what your rant is true it would be complete and total bloodshed in the streets.
As far as media violence is concerned the savagery may have increased but remember how many people Matt Dillon killed in Gunsmoke even if he lost he fight at the intro to every show? Now it seems that violence is the only thing they report. Their motto is "If it bleeds, it leads."
The actual incidence of gun based violence is actually decreasing. I believe it is because more civilians have armed themselves and the criminals have realized that a simple break and enter can lead to loosing a gunfight. A stolen TV is not worth risking a belly full of buckshot. Please consider the peaceful citizen does not determine the violence level in a society. The peaceful are just the victims and have a basic right to (IMHO easily) obtain guns for the defense of themselves, their families and, in some incidences, strangers. Peaceful people do not increase violence. Violent criminals do.
The incident in the OP was an unfortunate accident. That is all it is.
Oh please, the majority of these stories are crazy gun nuts slobbering over their guns just itching to pull the trigger first, ask questions later. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
What everybody knows is that the "gun grabbers" are idiots.
Which group encounters gun violence more:
A. Victims of crime.
B. Strangers accidentally shot by a gun owner.
If you actually believe that laws against firearms would prevent firearm related crime, why don't we just pass a law against using firearms during a crime? Oh, there are such laws? Oh, they aren't working?
We have laws against the possession, sale, manufacture and import of cocaine, heroine and meth. Guess what? ANYBODY can purchase any of those within 24 hours. Do you believe that guns laws will magically work? Of course they won't.
Maybe you want to outlaw guns to prevent accidents. Want to compare the number of automobile accidents and gun accidents? Are you wanting to outlaw private ownership of cars and force everyone to ride buses?
Finally, let me ask you this. We know that the number of firearms in the US has dramatically increased in the last 10 years ( Number Of Guns Sold In US Each Year - Business Insider ); however, the amount of firearm violence has been drastically reduced in the last 10 years ( Gun Violence | National Institute of Justice ). If guns make the US more DANGEROUS, why has the number of incidents regarding gun violence dropped SIGNIFICANTLY as the number of guns have increased?
My wife wishes there were no snakes or spiders, because they are scary. Gun grabbers have this same mentality. They don't care what is real, they just want to get rid of those scary things.
I disagree. Americans have had more access to guns in generations past and they weren't nearly as stupid and paranoid then as they are today.
I blame the mass media. If you watch the news every day, or American movies and TV shows, all you'll see are negative representations of American society. That's bound to affect you and make you suspicious of your own neighbors.
People need to unplug from the TV and internet and reconnect with real live human beings face to face instead of living their life through social media chat rooms.
This. A gun is just a tool. It's the mindset of the person using a gun that makes it devastating. Our paranoid mass media coupled with our obsession with violence is leaving a bipolar society.
Oh please, the majority of these stories are crazy gun nuts slobbering over their guns just itching to pull the trigger first, ask questions later. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
I take it you didn't read the OPs link either. There's no mention of slobbering or itching. The shooter asked questions first, shot later. Not the reverse. I know it, everyone who read the story knows it--but you don't.
What about this story from last year about a mom hiding with her 2 daughters in a closet, shot an intruder with the proverbial 'record as long as your arm.' Another case of a "slobbering gun nut?"
Some may consider this a bit extreme but I consider it is not just good sense but my civic duty to shoot an assailant before he harms me or anyone I am responsible for protecting.
I take it you didn't read the OPs link either. There's no mention of slobbering or itching. The shooter asked questions first, shot later. Not the reverse. I know it, everyone who read the story knows it--but you don't.
What about this story from last year about a mom hiding with her 2 daughters in a closet, shot an intruder with the proverbial 'record as long as your arm.' Another case of a "slobbering gun nut?"
Its our culture of passing feel good laws which ignore the gangs and drugs upsteam of gun violence along with lawyers who have frghtened Americans.
So in a way it is our 'gun culture' that consists of prohibitive laws favoring the criminal rather than the victims.
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.
