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.
You do agree that there must be some line above which weapons should not be allowed to be owned by a private individual right? Unless you support the existence of private armies armed with tanks, artillery, rockets, and an air force, which I assume you do not.
And yes, the issue is about public safety - and public safety requires some degree of control. It's not control for control's sake, but for the ends of public safety. Least likely type of firearm? Perhaps, although I'd prefer to see sources on that, but I'm sure the amount of damage per incident that a shooter armed with an assault rifle would be greater before the person is taken down...
I believe that we currently have plenty of restrictions on the types of firearms which are available to the public.
And no, it isn't about public safety. If it were, you would be trying to fix the violence problem in society rather than being worrying about what I can legally purchase. You see, you're here arguing for more gun control, but you just admitted that you haven't even done enough research to know that rifles in general are used in less than 3% of gun crimes. Since there is no actual definition for what an "assault rifle" is, we have to lump those scary black rifles in with the rest of the rifle group. After all, that's all they really are, rifles.
As for how much damage can be done by an active shooter before he is taken down, if that were truly your concern then you would be calling for the federal government to stop turning our schools and public places into hunting preserves with the idiotic gun free zone laws.
I believe that we currently have plenty of restrictions on the types of firearms which are available to the public.
And no, it isn't about public safety. If it were, you would be trying to fix the violence problem in society rather than being worrying about what I can legally purchase. You see, you're here arguing for more gun control, but you just admitted that you haven't even done enough research to know that rifles in general are used in less than 3% of gun crimes. Since there is no actual definition for what an "assault rifle" is, we have to lump those scary black rifles in with the rest of the rifle group. After all, that's all they really are, rifles.
As for how much damage can be done by an active shooter before he is taken down, if that were truly your concern then you would be calling for the federal government to stop turning our schools and public places into hunting preserves with the idiotic gun free zone laws.
I'm saying that the violence problem is inextricably related to the ease of buying guns. Why do countries like Great Britain and Japan, for example, which prohibit private ownership of guns, have less incidents and casualties related to gun violence?
And no, I am not opposed to reasonable security measures at schools and public places. But it is up to the police and other lawfully designated individuals to provide that security, not for private citizens.
I'm saying that the violence problem is inextricably related to the ease of buying guns. Why do countries like Great Britain and Japan, for example, which prohibit private ownership of guns, have less incidents and casualties related to gun violence?
And no, I am not opposed to reasonable security measures at schools and public places. But it is up to the police and other lawfully designated individuals to provide that security, not for private citizens.
You are making the same idiotic comparison that liberals always make, trying to say that the US "should be more like..." and then naming a country which has a miniscule population compared to ours, a far different demographic, and vastly different socioeconomic conditions. This isn't Great Britain or Japan, but a totally different country. In fact, many of the ancestors of those who live here now left those countries that you would like to compare us to.
As for schools, sure, it makes a lot of sense to depend on the police to protect our children. After all, they're only minutes away.
You are making the same idiotic comparison that liberals always make, trying to say that the US "should be more like..." and then naming a country which has a miniscule population compared to ours, a far different demographic, and vastly different socioeconomic conditions. This isn't Great Britain or Japan, but a totally different country. In fact, many of the ancestors of those who live here now left those countries that you would like to compare us to.
As for schools, sure, it makes a lot of sense to depend on the police to protect our children. After all, they're only minutes away.
I think you are skirting the issue when you are comparing countries that have banned private citizens from having guns.
What difference does it make what country it is, or that countries population?
Simply put, those countries have proven removing guns from private hands, works.
If it can work in one country, it can work in any country.
The problem with doing any disarming in this country is spelled out in three words, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, and that is why it has never been done in this country.
Politicians who are funded by nra, are not going to go up against them, and my guess would be All except Donald Trump are , and always have been funded by nra.
You are making the same idiotic comparison that liberals always make, trying to say that the US "should be more like..." and then naming a country which has a miniscule population compared to ours, a far different demographic, and vastly different socioeconomic conditions. This isn't Great Britain or Japan, but a totally different country. In fact, many of the ancestors of those who live here now left those countries that you would like to compare us to.
As for schools, sure, it makes a lot of sense to depend on the police to protect our children. After all, they're only minutes away.
So you're saying that America is somehow exceptional in that we need guns when the vast majority of other nations don't? Vastly different socioeconomic conditions? How so?? We are a rich, industrialized nation. So are GB and Japan. Our demographics are very similar to GB, both in terms of the white majority and the existence of a non-white minority. Or are you saying that the existence of blacks and Hispanics require white people to own guns for self-protection? (That is really the only explanation that seems to make sense as to explain why you think our nation is different in such a way that owning guns is somehow essential to personal safety...) Miniscule population? Look and China and India.
I think you are skirting the issue when you are comparing countries that have banned private citizens from having guns.
What difference does it make what country it is, or that countries population?
Simply put, those countries have proven removing guns from private hands, works.
If it can work in one country, it can work in any country.
The problem with doing any disarming in this country is spelled out in three words, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, and that is why it has never been done in this country.
Politicians who are funded by nra, are not going to go up against them, and my guess would be All except Donald Trump are , and always have been funded by nra.
Bob.
If it can work in one country, it can work in any country? I think Jamaica and Mexico would disagree with you. Both have extremely strict gun laws, and both have much higher rates of gun violence than the US does.
And actually, the problem with doing any disarming in this country isn't the NRA, it's the Constitution. You may not like the fact that we have one, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Y2Jayy
So you're saying that America is somehow exceptional in that we need guns when the vast majority of other nations don't? Vastly different socioeconomic conditions? How so?? We are a rich, industrialized nation. So are GB and Japan. Our demographics are very similar to GB, both in terms of the white majority and the existence of a non-white minority. Or are you saying that the existence of blacks and Hispanics require white people to own guns for self-protection? (That is really the only explanation that seems to make sense as to explain why you think our nation is different in such a way that owning guns is somehow essential to personal safety...) Miniscule population? Look and China and India.
No, America isn't exceptional in that we need guns. However, we are exceptional in the fact that we are guaranteed the right to have them. You see, a couple hundred years ago our ancestors left Britain's rule and formed the United States. They were smart enough to understand that an unarmed population was much easier to subjugate than an armed population, and therefore decided to make sure that the citizens of their new country would never be unarmed. The protected several of our rights, including your right to argue about a topic which you evidently know nothing about.
Quote:
Our demographics are very similar to GB, both in terms of the white majority and the existence of a non-white minority.
Actually, our demographics are very dissimilar from Great Britain. The minority populations of GB make up about 15% of the overall population in GB. Meanwhile, the United States has a minority population of nearly 30%. Great Britain has fairly strict immigration controls, while we have open borders. Great Britain has a far different socioeconomic system from what we have, as well.
Quote:
Or are you saying that the existence of blacks and Hispanics require white people to own guns for self-protection? (That is really the only explanation that seems to make sense as to explain why you think our nation is different in such a way that owning guns is somehow essential to personal safety...)
Quite frankly, it doesn't matter if we need guns or not. We have the guaranteed right to own them, and that's really all that does matter. That being said, evil and idiocy exist in all races, classes, and genders. The two times that I have had to pull my firearm in self-defense (luckily I didn't actually have to shoot anyone), I didn't check to see what racial background my potential assailants came from. They had made it evident that they wished to do me harm, and that was all that mattered.
Quote:
Miniscule population? Look and China and India.
First of all, you didn't mention China and India in the post that I responded to. You mentioned GB and Japan, both of which have populations which don't even come close to ours. Second of all, using China or India as a template for how the United States should run? Seriously? One of those countries drowns female children and the other still has a large population that throws a man's widow on funeral pyre when he dies. Not to mention that the quality of life in both of those countries makes United States ghettos look wealthy.
So you're saying that America is somehow exceptional in that we need guns when the vast majority of other nations don't? Vastly different socioeconomic conditions? How so?? We are a rich, industrialized nation. So are GB and Japan. Our demographics are very similar to GB, both in terms of the white majority and the existence of a non-white minority. Or are you saying that the existence of blacks and Hispanics require white people to own guns for self-protection? (That is really the only explanation that seems to make sense as to explain why you think our nation is different in such a way that owning guns is somehow essential to personal safety...) Miniscule population? Look and China and India.
Can you show which of those countries you cited had parallel gun crime trends to ours in America? And after showing that, how did the gun bans in those countries impact both the gun crime AND overall crime rates over time? After all, we want to make sure they didn't trade one statistic for another. The most compelling way is to show the trends and their changes over time, not present day only.
I assume you're coming from a position of fact, so I eagerly await your crime trend statistics and gun ban correlations.
I am still tired of being called a pro gun (or just gun) nut by our Liberal friends here on CD that would rather hide behind a "Gun Free Zone" sign and think that it will protect them from some sicko with a gun. So I have a simple question to ask:
If a driver (drunk or sober) hits a family with his/her car, we (rightfully) blame the driver.
When a bomb blows up in Boston or Turkey or in??? We blame the bomber.
When someone kills someone with a gun, WHY THE HELL DO WE BLAME THE GUN?
ANSWER:
These repetitive false equivalencies are hackney.
We only "blame" those who hoard guns and/or use to kill people and pets.
None of us are "anti-gun." When we say "pro-gun," it refers to people who cherish their guns more than *actual lives.* There are way too many of them. (But Ironically, they deeply care about clumps of cells in a uterus and declare it "like.)
We are merely suggesting that some regulations be put in place to at least *cut down* on gun deaths. It is the pro-gun group who are against this and they are nuts for being so.
Let's see if you change your mind about common sense gun laws when someone you love is killed by one. And no, the solution is not just to "have your loved one carry a gun." Gun nuts never seem to understand that there are many possible outcomes in that case and in most of them, your loved ones would still die from a gun.
If you tell me I cannot have my weapon on my person, you better damn well pay an armed body guard following me around at your cost.
Because if the s h i t ever goes down, I'm suing you for taking my protection away, or denying me to have it on my person and then you didn't fully protect me before protecting yourself.
We only "blame" those who hoard guns and/or use to kill people and pets.
None of us are "anti-gun." When we say "pro-gun," it refers to people who cherish their guns more than *actual lives.* There are way too many of them. (But Ironically, they deeply care about clumps of cells in a uterus and declare it "like.)
We are merely suggesting that some regulations be put in place to at least *cut down* on gun deaths. It is the pro-gun group who are against this and they are nuts for being so.
Let's see if you change your mind about common sense gun laws when someone you love is killed by one. And no, the solution is not just to "have your loved one carry a gun." Gun nuts never seem to understand that there are many possible outcomes in that case and in most of them, your loved ones would still die from a gun.
I cherish my and my families lives. That is why I own handguns, rifles and shotguns. Revolver, bolt-action, lever-action, semi-auto and full-auto.
The only way they will ever be taken from me, is from my cold dead hand.
Give me liberty, or give me death.
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.
