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 think it would help more to work on our divide. The internet not only helps good people spread news and communicate, but it also helps deranged people. I think we will continue to see a rise in terror and the divide. It's just the effect of the information age. We have the ability to debate at a max rate now, and people can group together and encourage unity or divide.
I hope that we don't let another tragedy fuel more hate. Instead of the gun debate, we should be trying to rise above it and seek unity. That would do more good.
We've always had violent societies, and while we've improved we still have a way to go. I don't think gun laws could have prevented the terror, but I do think if we work more on unity it will. We need to realize the effect of the information age, good and bad.
Suuuure, the Muslims are the good guys. That's why their societies are so great everyone is trying to get into them and they never cause problems wherever they go at all.
They're so good. So virtuous. And so responsible with their gun ownership too. And their knife ownership. And their box truck ownership. And their box cutters.
Just good, you know. The kind of people that can just laugh off a silly cartoon about a pedophile. Happy go-lucky good guys.
The kind of guys that can really liven up a party, you know. They get loose, and make everyone feel welcome and have a great time with each other. And oh, the debates. Boy can they put together a rational argument without appealing to dogma or mythology or getting super irate or anything.
Just modern, clear-headed, normal human good guys who get along with everyone else and respect the rights of others.
Every single event like this ... Every one ... Even when it happens in countries with strict gun laws ... is immediately exploited to try to shame law-abiding people into accepting gun confiscation. Gun grabbers use events from across the globe to try and attack the NRA and the second amendment writ large.
You have to ask yourself why. Why do they keep trying to create an unarmed populace? Why do they want good people to be more vulnerable to criminals, terrorists, and other ideological zealots? Why do they want to remove the question from an attacker's head "Does this lady have a gun?" Why do they try to over-inflate gun violence statistics with suicides? That tact is a lie masquerading as an argument. And why are gun grabbers always leftists?
Maybe they secretly relish the idea of their perceived ideological enemies up against Che Guevara's wall of death. Maybe they are afraid that if they push Americans further than they want to go, they are going to grow tired of talking. Maybe their minds are driven by emotion and certain ideas are like dopamine even if they fly in the face of reality.
I don't know why. But I do know I am never, NEVER, giving up my weapons. I have a natural right to protect myself, my family, and my property. Anyone that does not like it can go pound sand.
A common sense solution to a common problem... especially here in the States. Why did this Australian white supremacist terrorist go to New Zealand to commit mass murder? Probably, in part, due to New Zealand having much more lax gun laws than Australia. Australia had a mass shooting many years ago. They then changed their laws and made access to guns much more restrictive. And guess what? No more mass shootings and gun homicides went down substantially. Less guns equals less gun deaths. It’s not so hard.
On April 28, 1996, a 28-year-old man named Martin Bryant drove his yellow Volvo to a popular tourist spot in Port Arthur, Australia, a former penal colony on the island state of Tasmania, and opened fire with a semi-automatic weapon. Before the day was through, he had shot dead 35 people and wounded 18 others. Twelve of those deaths came at the Broad Arrow Café, where Bryant first ate lunch and then sprayed bullets with his Colt AR-15 SP1, which he had stowed in a tennis bag. At the gift shop next door, he murdered eight more people. Later, he shot a young mother running away with her two children—all three at close range.
So what happened after the assault-weapon ban? Well therein lies the other half of the story twist noted above: Nothing.
Nothing, that is, in a good way.
Australian independence didn’t end. Tyranny didn’t come. Australians still hunted and explored and big-wave surfed to their hearts’ content. Their economy didn’t crash; Invaders never arrived. Violence, in many forms, went down across the country, not up. Somehow, lawmakers on either side of the gun debate managed to get along and legislate.
As for mass killings, there were no more. Not one in the past 22 years.
I hope that we don't let another tragedy fuel more hate. Instead of the gun debate, we should be trying to rise above it and seek unity. That would do more good.
Exactly.
Nobody deserves to be a victim at the hands of the heinous. Not at all.
I'm not of the opinion of restricting rights in vain of tragedy.
Nor of the opinion firearms are inherently dangerous, responsible, solely for nefarious deeds, or subject to further restriction/legislation/regulation.
It is precisely why I endorse everyone to keep and bear arms and accept the responsibility for their safety/security, and the safety and security of their loved ones, their property, and their community.
It isn't a blood lust to endorse legal and lawful defense. It is often conflated and falsely equated with a blood lust and projection.
Nobody. Not one person deserves to be stripped of their rights to life, liberty, pursuits of happiness and should be willing and able to defend that. To endorse otherwise is backwards and makes not one lick of sense to me whatsoever. Why folks argue against lawful self defense, and exercising their Constitutionally protected rights to keep and bear arms made as much sense to me as my highschool days when they enacted the 0 tolerance policy, where if a victim of bullying even a physical attack was subject to as much if not worse punishment than their bully/attacker. Unless the goal was/is to breed incapable individuals to be reliant upon an adult in the room to be their savior... which translates into adulthood to-Don't defend yourself your loved ones your property your community as you see fit, that's condemned. Be reliant only upon the police. You can't be trusted with exercising your rights.
Um....rather than passing more gun laws that have no impact on criminals-who, by definition, don't obey laws...why don't we make shooting innocent people MORE illegal.
Tens of thousands of gun laws on the books-and liberals want more. The one thing that gun-control proponents have never explained-is how they intend to get guns from the hands of criminals. One more law that only impacts the law abiding. In fact, instead of punishing criminals-the Dems just killed an amendment that would notify law enforcement when criminals tried to buy a gun through a dealer.
Fortunately, more progressive states are doing something about this. Over the last 30 years, concealed carry legislation has taken off, recognizing civil rights in all but the most backwards, regressive states. In the last 10 years, several (I think 16 now) states have recognized Constitutional Carry (concealed carry without a permit). While we hear about those backwards, regressive states passing ever more laws to restrict civil rights-overall gun rights have some a long ways.
Ironically, New Zealand has gun laws similar to the most radical the nutters want to implement in this nation. Every firearms owner needs to be licensed, their medical records are reviewed with consideration for mental illness and their criminal background checked. Worked really well, didn't it? If we can't keep meth, cocaine or heroin off our streets-which have never (well for over 100 years anyway) been legal-why would even the lowest-IQ think that such laws would prove effective at disarming criminals?
Last edited by Toyman at Jewel Lake; 03-16-2019 at 11:32 AM..
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,180 posts, read 13,461,836 times
Reputation: 19487
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabchuck
NYC had that many murders last year ? I figured it would be much less then that do to the strict firearms laws there. So, gun restricted NYC with just shy of 9 million people had double the murders of London, another gun restricted city with 9 million. Great thanks for proving my point.
Both cities had very low murders rates for cities of their size.
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.
