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.
Of course it can be attributed to gangs....however....where did those gangs get guns? The gangs in Canada get guns illegally too...but those guns came across a certain border.
Also mass shooters are usually not gang members.
Then there is the issue of accidental gun deaths. Even if the whole country were law abiding gun owners, you would still have many accidental deaths. Higher than other places.
With freedom comes responsibility and there are irresponsible gun owners that contribute to the accidental deaths. I do understand some of your points in regard to the availability of guns, I do. But I believe very sincerely that if our lawmakers in Congress tighten gun ownership they will do it in a way that makes it onerous for law abiding citizens while doing nothing to keep guns out of the hands of the crazies or the criminals. They are incompetent.
I have a colleague who comes from a country which has very high levels of violence, a lot of it with firearms. They also have very, very strict gun laws so that it is essentially impossible for a private citizen to buy a hand gun and very difficult to buy a long gun and there are lots of restrictions. He said only the military, law enforcement and criminals have guns in his country. When I asked where the criminals got guns he said they got them from the military and law enforcement. He also said that people essentially surrender to criminals and give them whatever they want because they can't defend themselves. People that think that guns law, even draconian guns law, are going to make a difference are fools.
Interestingly enough, as soon as my colleague could buy a gun in this country, he bought one. I think there's a lesson in that.
I have a colleague who comes from a country which has very high levels of violence, a lot of it with firearms. They also have very, very strict gun laws so that it is essentially impossible for a private citizen to buy a hand gun and very difficult to buy a long gun and there are lots of restrictions. He said only the military, law enforcement and criminals have guns in his country. When I asked where the criminals got guns he said they got them from the military and law enforcement. He also said that people essentially surrender to criminals and give them whatever they want because they can't defend themselves. People that think that guns law, even draconian guns law, are going to make a difference are fools.
Interestingly enough, as soon as my colleague could buy a gun in this country, he bought one. I think there's a lesson in that.
Just saw this. Can you clarify what isn't working with free speech?
Also...ya, go to the Canadian Forums and have a field day on reading the stuff we get.
Once again, apologies. What I was refering to was the hate speech provisions that seem to limit Canadian's free speech but the US is getting almost as bad so I should probably not have cited that.
You think this is a credible retort to the poster who stated zero shootings in Australia?
It is......why is it that where I live even with guns all over the place no one gets shot in years but in Chicago with stricter laws hundreds get shot?
It is......why is it that where I live even with guns all over the place no one gets shot in years but in Chicago with stricter laws hundreds get shot?
How many years did Russia spend trying to put down an insurgency in Afghanistan? 20+, wasn't it? Afghan rebels weren't armed with tanks and jets, they were armed with rifles and a few RPGs. Yet, they fought one of the largest armies in the world to a standstill.
As for liberals and gun laws, don't forget that liberals supported both the AWB law, which was allowed to sunset because it had zero effect on crime, and the gun free zone law, which has helped to double mass shootings since it was passed by giving psychopaths their own little hunting preserves. Using the terms "liberal" and "sane" in the same sentence is the definition of oxymoron. The vast majority of shooters have been shown to be liberal, come from liberal backgrounds, or support liberal agendas.
As I said in an earlier posts, places like Afghanistan are a mess. So that is what will happen in the US if a similar divisions of power were to fight.
Certainly there appears to be no winners, but the side with the greatest numbers of deaths, is the side without the jet fighters and high tech kill at a distance type of technology.
Also can you point in the direction of where you got the information about liberals being responsible for most mass shootings? I very seldom hear about these shootings as politically motivated, but crazy motivated usually by a white male who feels inadequate in some way.
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.
Tory is actually my first name.
