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.
Um no. You need to realize that guns are a different thing in Wyoming than they are in Manhattan, and that while self-protection may mean owning a gun in one place, it may well mean banning them in another.
How do you propose protecting people from the bad guys who have them?
Accept the fact that America has 300Million+ guns,they are easy to get if you dont already have one and the carnage will continue no matter what laws are put in place.
About one in three US households owns a gun. The other two-thirds choose not to. We are already THAT CLOSE to becoming a gun-free society. There is meanwhile nothing that condemns us to perpetual slaughter in our streets. We are not constrained or commanded to do nothing about this ongoing carnage that you mention.
Criminals don't choose a time when the likelihood of being caught is high ,the are opportunist predators.
The most cops can do in many cases, is take a report, and protect himself with his gun, that's it. His gun is not there to protect you.
Many criminals prefer ambush ,or rather hoping to catch a victim at their weakest .
If you took responsibility for your own security, and it was SOP for the general public, there would be a lot less crime period. even crazy people don't put their hand in fire.
But the abuse of the call mentally insane, getting people off, is criminal and they know it.
If the price must be paid just the same, regardless of sanity,
You'd see a sharp decline in homicide.
But many of you prefer to take the irresponsible mentality that the police will be there in the nick of time to save you, like, when has that ever happened ?
When there were fewer people, there were the fewer criminals, and less desperation a better economy.
The more crowded we get, the worse the economy, the more desperate people get .
We have a government (president) that is making statements that we are incapable of governing our selves, which means they want to alter the constitution to fit their own agenda (treason)
The second amendment was a safety, the founding fathers put in place to protect the people (you and me), from this run away government, that drove out your jobs, and created this crisis, fitting into the UN agenda 21, and new world order .
So if you are for the destruction of America with Obama, you are the problem, not the solution.
About one in three US households owns a gun. The other two-thirds choose not to. We are already THAT CLOSE to becoming a gun-free society. There is meanwhile nothing that condemns us to perpetual slaughter in our streets. We are not constrained or commanded to do nothing about this ongoing carnage that you mention.
Some because they chose not to. Some because they aren't legally allowed to(but I bet the ones that do own them in that group aren't counted in your numbers), some dont own one because they aren't legally allowed to because of where they live and they are law abiding citizens and some dont because they aren't educated in gun ownership and listen to people who try to scare them about guns.
Uou are looking at just deaths by guns and not other means. You are also just looking at murders. Not violence in general.
Yes, guns are the problem. There are no other means of inflicting death and injury that even remotely compare to guns. If there are other concerns out there, we can easily afford to wait to deal with them until AFTER we have dealt with guns.
Otherwise, not at all. For every gun-related death, there are about seven gun-related injuries severe enough to require a trip to the ER. And because of the way bullets tumble, ricochet, and fragment once inside the body, gunshot wounds are among the most expensive of all injuries to treat and repair. This is hardly an efficient use of highly trained medical personnel, and it is clearly not helpful re efforts to lower our overall health care costs. These barely non-lethal consequences of guns are a component of the "mayhem" part of "death and mayhem", and they are just another deplorable gun-related tragedy.
And some, otherwise lawful individuals, own them in areas where it is illegal to own them and keep them hidden away until such a time as they need them to protect themselves. Once in a while you hear about them being arrested for owning a gun where they did use it for self protection. I would venture to say there are many more out there, but not enough.
It has been shown in the few instances where gun ownership or concealed carry was previously illegal or made difficult and then made legal violent crimes went down in numbers.
About one in three US households owns a gun. The other two-thirds choose not to. We are already THAT CLOSE to becoming a gun-free society. There is meanwhile nothing that condemns us to perpetual slaughter in our streets. We are not constrained or commanded to do nothing about this ongoing carnage that you mention.
With 300 million guns and easy access to any one who wants one its going to be a long time before America becomes gun free and IMO is an impossible goal to achieve. More gun laws? i read almost daily of people being shot by people who slip through any gun laws that are in place.
The idea that we'd all be safer if every one had guns sounds like an absurd idea to me.
IMO you either accept the fact that many people are going to be killed by guns on a daily basis or you try to get rid of the guns.
The USA is one of the safest countries in the world. Geographically, outside of neighborhoods where a certain demographic resides, the vast majority of the land mass of the USA doesn't worry about gun crime. It's practically unknown except for the mayhem shown on TV.
Exactly.
~30,000 people killed via firearm
Throw out the 10k that used it for suicide.
20k in a country of 318000000?
That means 99.999% of people have no issue.
= For every gun-related death, there are about seven gun-related injuries severe enough to require a trip to the ER. And because of the way bullets tumble, ricochet, and fragment once inside the body, gunshot wounds are among the most expensive of all injuries to treat and repair. This is hardly an efficient use of highly trained medical personnel, and it is clearly not helpful re efforts to lower our overall health care costs. .
Listen, I am no gun nut, but I have worked in several level one trauma facilities in different states and I will tell you the thing that is causing the most trauma, loss of life, toll on society/medical system, morbidity, etc, (not including all the deaths) is MVAs. But no one wants to talk about making it harder to get a license or having your license gone forever if you're caught DUI, etc.
Guns...everyone wants to talk about getting rid of guns. But I feel like a more sincere conversation would address all preventable stupid, unnecessary loss of life. I'd start with all the idiots and irresponsible we put behind the wheel.
Why do people use the term gun nut for people who support the 2nd amendment? I only have a .22 right now but since I am for the Constitution that seems to make me a gun nut for many people.
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.
