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.
Are you saying that the French, British, Dutch, Italians, Canadians, Japanese, Australians are all drunk while the only sober people live in Texas? Lol
Technically you said that.
He said, """A alcoholic would say "I have driven drunk all my life and nothing ever happened to me or my family."
Interesting"""
IT's LEGAL to CARRY GUNS as citizens to any function in the right to their own and family self defense.
Newly passed state laws and or local laws violate the 2nd amendment and its intent.
I dont know what the issue is with people and schools and guns. Seems to me if guards were in the back holding guns to "protect" people from terrorist I am sure they all would be feel safe and happy they are their. Most would not complain for some crazy idea that they are GOOD people with guns and parents of the children I guess are BAD people who cant have them to protect themselves.
The GUN is a tool it is not going to shoot anyone itself.
The reason parents and or people carry guns so not to scare people or say look at this and wave it around. ITS to be ready to shoot if their family and or life is in DANGER. That is it.
IT's LEGAL to CARRY GUNS as citizens to any function in the right to their own and family self defense.
Newly passed state laws and or local laws violate the 2nd amendment and its intent.
I dont know what the issue is with people and schools and guns. Seems to me if guards were in the back holding guns to "protect" people from terrorist I am sure they all would be feel safe and happy they are their. Most would not complain for some crazy idea that they are GOOD people with guns and parents of the children I guess are BAD people who cant have them to protect themselves.
The GUN is a tool it is not going to shoot anyone itself.
The reason parents and or people carry guns so not to scare people or say look at this and wave it around. ITS to be ready to shoot if their family and or life is in DANGER. That is it.
By your argument then guns should be allowed in courthouses and airports.
I don't want you near my child with a gun because I don't know what your intent is nor do I know if you are proficient with the weapon in question. You could have terrible eyesight or lack depth perception. If you had a gun (or anyone other than a uniformed officer) in a school near my child I would be more afraid of what you would do than some unknown threat.
By your argument then guns should be allowed in courthouses and airports.
I don't want you near my child with a gun because I don't know what your intent is nor do I know if you are proficient with the weapon in question. You could have terrible eyesight or lack depth perception. If you had a gun (or anyone other than a uniformed officer) in a school near my child I would be more afraid of what you would do than some unknown threat.
Do you think a gun is required if someone wanted to do harm to your child?
You should probably never drive a car then, you don't know who you are driving around, if they actually have a license, if they have had any training or if the lack depth perspective.
By your argument then guns should be allowed in courthouses
They should be
Quote:
and airports.
In Georgia, they are up to the checkpoint, and it is no longer a crime if it's discovered at the checkpoint.
Quote:
I don't want you near my child with a gun because I don't know what your intent is nor do I know if you are proficient with the weapon in question. You could have terrible eyesight or lack depth perception. If you had a gun (or anyone other than a uniformed officer) in a school near my child I would be more afraid of what you would do than some unknown threat.
So what do you do about the hundreds of concealed carriers you and your child have likely passed by? Did you frisk each and every one of them and then interrogate them just to be sure what their intent is?
"Until the late 1980s, this lack of uniformity in gun control worked well for Switzerland. Crime rates were low and the Swiss were comfortable with private gun ownership because of the militia system. In the early 1990s, however, the crime rate increased, and Swiss guns were frequently implicated in the European terrorist scene and in the wars that ravaged former Yugoslavia. These circumstances led to a climate of domestic and international pressure that persuaded the Swiss to abandon their laissez faire attitude toward firearms and start the cumbersome legislative process of enacting a federal weapons law."[7]
Imagine that; their "laissez faire" attitude towards firearms creating problems for their neighbours caused them to act. Imagine such an intelligent approach. Gollllllly; that intelligence ain't a'gonna happen on this continent. that's a fer sure!
Canadian deficiencies have no place in American policy making.
Buahahaha. Somebody would like to see Switzerland as another Texas where in fact gun laws in Switzerland are way more restrictive. I would actually like to see these laws transferred to the us. Wouldn't you? Lol
- Swiss men have an option to keep their military grade rifles issued upon entering compulsory army training, in their houses but can have no bullets for these rifles. All rifles are registered and all owners have to be licensed.
- To carry a loaded firearm in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragbewilligung (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.[14] It is, however, quite common to see a person serving military service to be en route with his rifle, albeit unloaded.[15]"
-Transporting guns
Guns may be transported in public as long as an appropriate justification is present. This means to transport a gun in public, the following requirements apply:
The ammunition must be separated from the gun, no ammunition in a magazine.
The transport needs to be as direct as possible and needs a valid purpose:
For courses or exercises hosted by marksmanship, hunting or military organisations,
To an army warehouse and back,
To show the gun to a friend or a possible buyer
To and from a holder of a valid arms trade permit,
To and from a specific event, i.e. gun shows.[16]
The point is, you believe that the proliferation of guns is what causes crime. Switzerland adequately debunks your claim. Yes, some Swiss laws are more restrictive than those of the U.S. but the fact remains that the Swiss have just as large of a gun culture as the U.S. and not even half the crime rate..... How do you explain that if you claim that guns cause crime?
***Switzerland trails behind only the U.S, Yemen and Serbia in the number of
guns per capita; between 2.3 million and 4.5 million military and private
firearms are estimated to be in circulation in a country of only 8 million
people. Yet, despite the prevalence of guns, the violent-crime rate is low:
government figures show about 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in
2010***
With the exception of a few laws here and there, Switzerland DOES resemble Texas with it's gun culture, and very little crime. Have an explanation for that? Or are you going to stick with your strategy of denial?
By your argument then guns should be allowed in courthouses and airports.
I don't want you near my child with a gun because I don't know what your intent is nor do I know if you are proficient with the weapon in question. You could have terrible eyesight or lack depth perception. If you had a gun (or anyone other than a uniformed officer) in a school near my child I would be more afraid of what you would do than some unknown threat.
I'm curious why it is that you guys always seem to assume that police are far more trained than average citizens? Is it because they wear a badge?
Do you think a gun is required if someone wanted to do harm to your child?
You should probably never drive a car then, you don't know who you are driving around, if they actually have a license, if they have had any training or if the lack depth perspective.
The fear mongering is draining.
The issue is my car has safety protocols mandated by law in place. I can be reasonably confident that another driver cannot purposely hurt me while driving. And any attempt by another driver to do so endangers them equally.
You are right someone could harm my child without a gun but anything that person would use would be less lethal.
Canadian deficiencies have no place in American policy making.
Good one!
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.
