Conceal and Carry in Chicago (Washington: suburbs, medical, money)

[ChiNaan]

Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson

Kind of hard to shoot back when you are sound asleep.

Exactly. Just one of many ways that you're far more likely to die from having guns in your house than you are to successfully defend yourself from an attack.

[chitownperson]

Originally Posted by mattywo85

Yeah change it cause the second amendment is useless lol. Then that creates a domino effect and other amendments will be changed too. Getting rid of all the guns won't do anything good and would have a massive backlash.

The second amendment is outdate and doesn't take into consideration contemporary society, so yes it IS useless. It needs to be changed because it causes more harm than good, and why are you so scared of a domino effect? If other amendments are positive and doesn't cause thousands of people harm every year, there won't be a domino effect. A ban would actually do a whole lot of good, and many more lives would be safer for it. I see you are scared of change and what possible might happen in the event of change... these amendments you seem to care so much about were a result of revolution you know.

[chitownperson]

Originally Posted by mattywo85

What says that person doesn't have a grenade, a bomb, or something else besides a gun?

Grenades and bombs are illegal, which is why thousands of people in american aren't killed with them a year, unlike guns.

[chitownperson]

Originally Posted by mattywo85

The more laws and legislation a society has, the more violent it will be.

Then you should move to Sudan, as they have much fewer laws and legislation compared to the US... then you can enjoy their non-violent society.

[chitownperson]

Originally Posted by Link N. Parker

What about Mexico? Hand guns are illegal in Mexico (and all of Latin America), yet they still have horrible violence there. The "gun ban" there is not working AT ALL.

Again, its a culture problem that they have there (and we have here). Meanwhile, in Switzerland, EVERY household is required to have guns (including machine guns) because every male is required to be in the military there (sort of like a National Guard). EVERY household is a small military base.

Isreal is another example of where a lot of people are in the Militia, and they dont have the "mass shootings" problem. Hell, I have even seen photos of girls in bikins at the beach in Israel, with an uzi (or some other automatic rifle/machine gun) being carried on their back.

So this takes us back to culture...the liberal left will tell you though, that EVERY world culture is sacred and equal to one another, even the destructive ones (except the "redneck" rural american culture, they are considered by liberals to be dummies who need to be eliminated). So we are never allowed to criticize the destructive cultures; instead every one must give up their constitutional right to bear arms because liberals are worried about someone getting hurt.

And dont get me started on the fact that the Obama Administration was BUSTED, yes caught red handed, shipping guns INTO mexico so that people will shoot each other! Eric Holder shipped guns into Mexico and now a lot of people died. How can liberals be against guns, but then vote for a guy who shipped guns into mexico so that they will kill each other?

The list was a comparison of developed and industrialized first world countries, which Mexico is not. We could spend all day comparing every single country, but the US is suppose to be up there with other first world nations in terms of society development... hence the list.

Pro gunners always bring up Switzerland, but fail to acknowledge the societal differences, and the problems that affect the US.

Yeah, there is a problem with the culture in the US, it's call the gun culture and the culture of violence, which makes a ban even more important. Pouring more guns into a society that are willing to use it to kill lots of innocent people is not what I'd call smart.

You are free to critic the destructive culture, and I might even agree with you from time to time, but I AM worried that people will get hurt, because thousands of people are not only getting hurt, but are getting killed... so yes, get ride of the amendment - it's junk.

As for the guns that went to Mexico, it was a horribly failed attempt to draw out members of organized crime, but they way you're spinning it is that the administration were giving guns criminals just to give them guns, which is a lie and makes everything you say come across as ideologically fueled rhetoric.

[chitownperson]

Originally Posted by J. Lundegaard

Well, at least you're being honest and recognize that the Constitution has to be changed before you can ban guns. That's going to be near impossible in this country though at this time.

I think the country owes it to it's people to try to make a difference regardless of how hard or long it takes.

[chitownperson]

Originally Posted by J. Lundegaard

I could come up with many similar examples using cars, explosives (fertilizer), knives, etc. Chitownperson, as you obviously know, we live in a free and open society. Doing so comes with certain risks, one of which is that people will go crazy (or are just evil) and will decide to kill other human beings. It is horrible, I know, but at the same time living in a society where the government would have the power to monitor and "regulate" all its citizens to prevent any bad crimes from happening would be a nightmare. I would rather live in a relatively free society where you run the risk (albeit low) of being killed by another citizen, than live in a society where many freedoms are taken away and given to the government in the name of safety.

I've given my views on the difference between the utilitarian differences between guns and cars, and how they're not the same. Other explosives are band from private ownership for a reason.

Freedom is relative to the laws we live under, so we do not exactly live in a completely "free" society, and it would be horrific if we did. There are certain freedoms people should have and there are those that people shouldn't, such as the freedom to commit crimes etc... The freedom to own guns in contemporary America comes at the expense of the freedom for people to live in a country where they have to worry less about being a victim of horrific gun violence.

I would agree that it's dangerous when the government becomes oppressive, and does so in the name of national safety (starting a few wars in the middle east during the past decade comes to mind as examples), but it's important to evaluate the type of freedom one should be allowed, and how it actually affects society.

[20yrsinBranson]

Originally Posted by ChiNaan

Exactly. Just one of many ways that you're far more likely to die from having guns in your house than you are to successfully defend yourself from an attack.

Not at all. The boy was already in the house. I assure you that BREAKING INTO a house makes lots of noise and since 1 out of every three households in this country has a dog, that is an added factor. The reason that she did not wake up was because she TRUSTED her son and THAT is what got her killed.

She should have had him put away YEARS ago.

20yrsinBranson

[chitownperson]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

You don't, not in this country. For what it's worth most Americans would rather tolerate gun violence than do away with guns; they consider such such violence the price paid for their freedom to be armed and are comfortable with the choice.

Hell, those so many guns out here now only a totalitarian state could get rid of them. Who wants that?

Myself, I'd be in favor of restricting new firearms to six shot revolving pistols and single shot breech loading rifles or double barreled breech loading rifles and shotguns. Jim Corbett killed man eating tigers and leopards with a double barreled rifle, one should certainly suffice for the game in this country.

Well, I agree that there are a significant amount of Americans that are comfortable with gun ownership with the price being the occasional massacre and daily fatalities. That's not a trade off I'm comfortable with.

[chitownperson]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

Yes, absolutely.

I think Britain and Germany are safer places not because they have less guns but because they're inhabited by the British and Germans and not by Americans.

Note that when the Brits and Germans leave their own nations they are very enthusiastic, brutal and efficient killers, far worse than Americans.

There are plenty of criminals in Britain and Germany, but you don't hear about them as much stateside because much of the US media is only concerned with the US. But one thing holds true is that gun violence in Britain was greatly reduced after the ban... and that's comparing it to itself.

There are other countries that have also enforced bans and have managed to lower gun crimes, and no 2 nations are alike, so despite the differences between nations, the possibility is there. And America is still suppose to be a 1st world nation, which is something is shares with Britain and a few other places.