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.
I used to be quite angry about gun deaths and the never ending massacre of children , elderly, worshipers and groups from just about every walk of life.
No more.
It is simply a function of our Society. We love guns, and we are not upset when a few dozen of our citizens are killed during ignorant gun violence. We get all flustered for a day or two, and that's it.
You just have to deal with it. Accept it. We love our guns way more than we love our people. We all know that with so many assault weapons in the hands of our citizens that many people are going to die during violent assaults, but we don't care. We don't pass legislation halting the massacres. We don't shut down the manufacturers, nor the shops and shows which sell the hardware. Instead, we love having guns, and accept the collateral damage they inflict.
Shrugging your shoulders is a much calmer way to look at it than trying to stop the violence. Accept it. The decision has been made. We love it. We are happy with it. We accept that death is a part of it. Sorry for the parents of the children. They did not survive. Guns did. All is good.
Both I think...
We have little choice but get used to acts of terrorism, however we may manage that in our own ways.
We also have little choice but to expect the call to do more of what we can to prevent acts of terrorism in the future, even though all acts of terrorism can never be prevented. Especially from those more directly affected by such acts; who lost a loved one, lost a leg, forever lost their life as they knew it, in numbers a bit too extreme to shrug off; 58 killed and over 500 injured in just minutes? No shrugging that one off.
Well, in this gun debate, that is one of the last things to be addressed. Culture of violence? A mentality of "you disrespect me, you die".
Laws restricting already exist in alot of cities where gun violence is high. Baltimore, Newark, Oakland, and when Mayor Daley got strict with gun laws, the murder rate went up in Chicago. Detroit has been tightening with gun control. It has long been synonymous with murder. Criminals and even regular people will disregard gun laws. Even "gun control" doesn't guarantee safety. The only way to get every gun off the street is through a dictatorship, and people will revolt in that instance.
Comparing airport security to guns is ridiculous.
Use this debate as an example of all being considered, argued, addressed in one way or another, and I think you limit your understanding of all else going on around you, whether you are aware or not...
The problem of course is violence and all the many sources that cause violence. Add the very high number of guns easily had in this country, and of course where there are high crime rates, there are also high incidents of gun violence.
You also seem to be misunderstanding my point about airport security as just another effort to do what we can even though there are so many ways in which our security is not protected.
There is what we can do that makes sense, there is what we can't do, and may we have the wisdom to know the difference...
The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”
Ultimately, the research concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” largely because the law’s grandfathering of millions of pre-ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually” and were “still unfolding” when the ban expired in 2004.
And aside from the numbers, again, the issue and/or concern goes well beyond the simple statistics. Many people -- most I believe -- just don't accept the rational that attempts to justify the sale, purchase or possession of such weapons by average citizens, weapons that don't have much to do the more generally accepted reasons a typical gun owner wants or uses guns.
The biggest fallacy is those rifles that were banned were NOT assault weapons.
The rifles that shoot the exact same bullet but, did NOT LOOK menacing were NOT banned.
The ONLY difference was in the LOOKS of the rifles.
We CANNOT have an intelligent discussion if we use false words.
People should become MORE educated on guns if they want to have a discussion on guns.
Beside Fact check has been PROVEN to NOT be a reliable source.
I'm going to explain why I believe I need a gun as a means of self-defense.
I moved out here to NC a few years ahead of my husband because I retired first, and I'm overseeing the renovation of our house. During a dispute with one of the local tradesmen (as sometimes happens when work is inferior to what was contracted), the man repeatedly threatened me with sexual assault (I'm female). In text messages. I still have them and I printed them out. He no longer works on my house.
I reported this to the local police. They "talked with" the local tradesman. Then, the officer came back to my house and told me I was "over-reacting."
So. Here I am. Threatened multiple times with sexual assault. By a man who knows where I live. And the local police officer says I'm "over-reacting."
Clearly, the police will be of no help in my situation. So I need a gun for self-defense.
Please don't criticize me on this in this thread. If you have something to say to me in criticism, or can help me in this matter in any way, please send me a private message via my user name. Thank you.
And all this time I thought you were a male...
In the course of a dispute like you describe, threats like you describe can and do happen. Whether that is a fast path to bringing out the guns is determined by how we deal with such problems. I had a similar incident with a neighbor woman, over a dispute about their tree that came down and did damage in our back yard, to our pool, brickwork, our patio -- a real mess.
She accused me of all sorts of nasty things that were absolutely not true, all in an effort to win her case in court. I had to get my FBI friend to write up a counter reference, and he told me that he sees that sort of thing happen all the time. Fortunately all went well for me in court and she was badly embarrassed in more than a few ways, ordered to pay all the damage in full.
No doubt my wife, both sisters, my daughter and just about every woman I know personally is at risk of similar threats like you describe and many others, but none own guns and despite the threats all around us, none feel the need to own a gun as compared to what else they can do to protect themselves from harm.
Also not sure how many times someone has been shot, maybe even a dirt bag like the one you describe who all considered may have deserved some form of punishment, but deserving to get shot and likely killed is usually not the punishment that fits the crime.
Possible the police were right about you over-reacting? Who knows, but just be sure not to over-react when it comes time you think you need to use that gun. Okay?
Use this debate as an example of all being considered, argued, addressed in one way or another, and I think you limit your understanding of all else going on around you, whether you are aware or not...
The problem of course is violence and all the many sources that cause violence. Add the very high number of guns easily had in this country, and of course where there are high crime rates, there are also high incidents of gun violence.
You also seem to be misunderstanding my point about airport security as just another effort to do what we can even though there are so many ways in which our security is not protected.
There is what we can do that makes sense, there is what we can't do, and may we have the wisdom to know the difference...
"Add the very high number of guns easily had in this country, and of course where there are high crime rates, there are also high incidents of gun violence."
And MOST of those guns were gotten ILLEGALLY, which goes to show all the LAWS IN THE WORLD WILL not STOP GANG BANGERS AND DRUG DEALERS FROM GETTING THEM.
No they dont, they are the lords we are the serfs...
They enjoy protection provided by staff armed with the very implement they seek to ban regulate and abolish. Do as I say not as I do. What's good for thee isn't good enough for me...
The ultimate stupid law. We all know the criminals, and insane target "Gun Free Zones". It is MORONIC.
The "gun free zone" really started with the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) signed into law by President George H.W. Bush that prohibits any unauthorized individual from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25).
From there the feeling that guns should not be on school campuses spread to other "zones" where the feeling is people are just better off without guns, and/or that anyone feeling they need carry a gun in such a zone should go elsewhere, not necessarily a message to people who have criminal intent but to others who want to brandish a gun for whatever their personal reasons.
"Moronic" for some, even at schools. Not so much for others. A little more complicated than you seem to realize in any case...
The biggest fallacy is those rifles that were banned were NOT assault weapons.
The rifles that shoot the exact same bullet but, did NOT LOOK menacing were NOT banned.
The ONLY difference was in the LOOKS of the rifles.
We CANNOT have an intelligent discussion if we use false words.
People should become MORE educated on guns if they want to have a discussion on guns.
Beside Fact check has been PROVEN to NOT be a reliable source.
I agree with your call for more/better education, but you too might want to think about what that means...
If all of you who obviously take pride in knowing all things about guns were to devote more time toward properly defining what weapons are obviously the target when referring to "assault weapons," that would be more productive than forever trying to point out where people are mistaken about what guns are being referred to.
I heard the Chief of police in Vegas describe the guns used as "fully automatic." What further definition or clarification is needed, I'm sure he is well able to provide anyone who needs it. Alternatives are not necessarily "false words" but simply the sign of people who don't have the knowledge or interest to know all things about all guns. Like we don't all always know all medical terms but understand what we need to know anyway.
Sites like FactCheck.org need not be altogether reliable in order to serve as a source of information. It's the information we can get anywhere that we are free to evaluate as true or false, worthy or not. It's a mistake to dismiss such information because of the source rather than evaluate the information regardless. You believe falsehoods are being reported by FactCheck.org. Fine. What are they?
That's what is important to note if education is the goal...
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.
