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.
that would rather hide behind a "Gun Free Zone" sign
Gun free zones are silly, because an insane person with a gun is not going to obey them. The only solution is a total ban on all guns, and total commitment to getting rid of the existing guns as fast as possible. The only real obstacle is politics. We need to get rid of the gun nuts to get around that obstacle. But since we consider gun nuts to be more important than the lives of our children, it isn't likely to happen. But I consider gun nuts to be murderers of children, because their political influence is what prevents us from getting rid of guns. If a president starts an unjust war for political reasons and to steal resources, he's a murderer, even if the actual killing is done by low-ranking soldiers. Gun nuts are like that. They don't all shoot the children, but they all vote to have them shot.
Because stabbings don't typically result in multiple-death the way gun violence so often does. And the number of persons killed by knives is negligible compared to gun deaths: 66% of all murders were the result of guns, while only 13% involved knives/stabbing weapons.
And if someone breaks into my house with a gun and I have a knife to protect me...what are my odds in surviving that match up?
Even less if I go with Biden's suggestions of using scissors.
And if someone breaks into my house with a gun and I have a knife to protect me...what are my odds in surviving that match up?
Even less if I go with Biden's suggestions of using scissors.
They often don't even arrive armed. Here's a mom who required effective self defense for herself and her young after being backed into a second floor attic space behind a bathroom by an unarmed and violent home invader who pursued one of her daughters up the staircase:
_"Georgia Mother Shoots Home Intruder: 911 Tapes"_
And here-in lies the crux of the whole matter. Idealistic BS
Idealistic BS? You brought up the car example. We license people to drive. When people prove that they cannot or will not drive responsibly, their DL is revoked. But with a gun, any wacko can get legally get his hands on a gun.
We have laws restricting and regulating the sale and consumption of alcohol to adults. We also have restrictions on freely selling alcohol in our homes and don't allow alcohol "shows" with sales to whomever we choose. We have tests and mandatory training periods for driving privileges.
We have laws against making explosives and acts of terrorism. We regulate and track any device created to create an explosion. Additionally, we monitor the sale of these items.
In essence, no one blames the gun. Although this is the simplistic, ignorant statement of so many gun lovers, it is never an argument used by those on the other side of the issue. Like alcohol and known explosives, we are simply asking for regulation. It is painfully obvious our current system isn't working. The onus is on gun lovers. If you want to own a gun, we simply ask for regulation. The better question would be: why are so many of you afraid you wouldn't be cleared for gun ownership by background checks and mental hygiene tests? If your true fear is you can't pass these checks, you probably should not own a gun!
I too have often wondered why gun nuts are so afraid they wouldn't pass a background or mental competency check. And I'm a gun owner.
Idealistic BS? You brought up the car example. We license people to drive. When people prove that they cannot or will not drive responsibly, their DL is revoked. But with a gun, any wacko can get legally get his hands on a gun.
Added by edit.
By the way, I am a proud gun owner.
"Shall not be infringed" means exactly that. Registration/licensure is a confiscatory tool, which despots throughout history have used to encroach on natural law rights to effective self defense.
You want fewer nuts, then do something about whole populations under the influence of powerful agitations and akathisias--and loss of inhibitions--induced by heavily marketed psychiatric 'meds' that cause them to lash out indiscriminately against self and others. Tweens hanging themselves in bedroom closets from stuff that the FDA has mandated black box warnings for their packaging inserts in reaction to just those kinds of escalating body counts.
_"New Rat Study: SSRIs Markedly Deplete Brain Serotonin"_
psychologytoday.com/blog/mad-in-america/201011/new-rat-study-ssris-markedly-deplete-brain-serotonin
Ask leftist media why it refuses to call attention to it.
Gun free zones are silly, because an insane person with a gun is not going to obey them. The only solution is a total ban on all guns, and total commitment to getting rid of the existing guns as fast as possible. The only real obstacle is politics. We need to get rid of the gun nuts to get around that obstacle. But since we consider gun nuts to be more important than the lives of our children, it isn't likely to happen. But I consider gun nuts to be murderers of children, because their political influence is what prevents us from getting rid of guns. If a president starts an unjust war for political reasons and to steal resources, he's a murderer, even if the actual killing is done by low-ranking soldiers. Gun nuts are like that. They don't all shoot the children, but they all vote to have them shot.
1 in 5 of Americans live in a rural area. In the city, average police response time is about 9 minutes. In rural areas, it might be 30-60 minutes or more.
Without guns for protection, what are these 60 million Americans supposed to do when threatened by criminals? How about when dangerous wild animals threaten them or their family? They'll be completely defenseless.
Idealistic BS? You brought up the car example. We license people to drive. When people prove that they cannot or will not drive responsibly, their DL is revoked. But with a gun, any wacko can get legally get his hands on a gun.
Added by edit.
By the way, I am a proud gun owner.
You think that just because someone has their drivers license revoked they can't/won't/don't continue to drive?
State officials estimate more than 180,000 Californians have had their driver's licenses or privileges suspended for DUI — and more than 70,000 of them continued driving.
Any "wacko" can NOT legally get his hands on a gun.
AFT 4473 question 11.f Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage you own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
If someone has been diagnosed as a "wacko" he can't legally buy a gun. If he hasn't been diagnosed then how do you know they're a wacko? If they lie and buy a gun they haven't legally bought it.
For being a "proud gun owner" you seem pretty ignorant on the laws around them.
1 in 5 of Americans live in a rural area. In the city, average police response time is about 9 minutes. In rural areas, it might be 30-60 minutes or more.
Without guns for protection, what are these 60 million Americans supposed to do when threatened by criminals? How about when dangerous wild animals threaten them or their family? They'll be completely defenseless.
I too have often wondered why gun nuts are so afraid they wouldn't pass a background or mental competency check. And I'm a gun owner.
I used to wonder that too, but this could easily lead to a wide range of things that disqualify someone from owning a gun, for example, if someone has ever taken an anti-depressant. Its confiscation getting a foot in the door.
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.