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.
Stopping all so called "gun violence" is impossible, it's never going to happen. Even in Japan where they never had a culture around firearms has shootings, England has an increasing number of shootings in spite of a virtual ban.
30,000 deaths with firearms, 65% are suicides, 29% are repeat felons killing other repeat felons, 3% are police shootings. You want to drastically reduce the number of shootings? Eliminate the criminals. No more 'catch and release', let the police do their job, no more plea bargains, lock them up away from society and you'll see the numbers drop. Look what happened in Chicago last year, people complained about police harassing criminals so the number of stops dropped by 90% which resulted in a 90% INCREASE in shootings.
In the midst of the latest, most devastating mass shooting on US soil (until the next one happens) that has left 59 people dead and hundreds injured; in the aftermath of this horrific mass murder that has devastated many families...this is all you can think of to say? THIS is your primary concern?
God help us.
No its not my primary concern, but it is a concern every time there is a shooting, the 99.9 percent of gun owners who never shot anyone come under attack from the knee jerk, freedom hating left, who seek to captalize on a tragedy to fullfill their agenda. See the o.p. for example.
Maybe what he meant to say was that "we need fewer idiots calling for fewer gun laws."
In the face of a major tragedy, we should be looking for solutions. Try a number of the strategies that have worked in states like Connecticut. They tightened gun laws and saw a 40 % reduction in gun homicides. Implement some strategies. If they don't work, revoke them. But at least TRY.
Well, if you want to stop guys like the Florida nightclub shooter, you'll disarm security guards.
If you want to stop shooters like Chris Dorner, you'll disarm cops.
And if you want to stop rich people (like the guy in Vegas) from going on rampages, you'll take away all of the pistol permits given out in places like New York, eliminate the "tax stamps" that allow the wealthy (and politicians) to own assault weapons + take away their armed guards.
I'm all in favor of equality- take away the special privileges from the rich, the connected, the cops, and public/private security & I'll gladly discuss disarming myself. But they go first, not me.
How about this strategy? We clamp down more on perpetrators of domestic violence. Many murderers including mass shooters have a previous history of domestic violence, including the Orlando shooter and Stephen Pollack.
With all the talk about "Doing Something" about gun violence, it got me thinking.
Most of ideas on here are completely unconstitutional (secret no buy list,outright bans) some of them are just plain ridiculous (camara's on guns)
How about this...If your caught with a stolen gun, caught stealing guns, Felon with a gun, caught with an illegal gun (modified to full auto etc.) You get the full monty, No plea bargain's ( DA's banned from bargaining) full maximum sentence+ with no parole, A judge can add to but not lower a sentence.
I would even go so far as to ban Governor's from being able to parole them.
What do you say, you want to do something right, right?
RR
Democrats be hard on criminals instead of going after the law abiding? Not going to happen. To bad since it would work. Get rid of the felons and you'd cut the number of shootings and "gun deaths" by thousands.
You really think being equipped with your own arsenal would ever prevent a determined government from destroying you? Do you have a tank? Do you have drones that can kill? Do you have advanced surveillance methods? Do you have a plane that drops bombs? Do you have explosives? You could collect ammunition all your life and you would never own a fraction of the killing machines that the U.S. military owns.
Do I have to post this again?
Quote:
You may think that the government has a monopoly of power with their superior weapons. But it is highly unlikely that the military if ordered to do so would come in and destroy all of their friends, families and neighborhoods. There would be nothing left for them to come home to. More than likely they would use those weapons on those who ordered them to do so.
With some 80 million or so legal gun owners and taking an educated guess. I'd say that most members of the military have their own private arms and believe in the 2nd Amendment and Constitutional Law. They've taken oaths to uphold it. Same for members of law enforcement who would refuse to go on house to house searches to confiscate privately held arms. Not only that but there's not enough manpower or money to conduct such a massive operation. Not to mention tying them up from all other duties they are required to perform. They'd also be met with massive armed resistance which would be overwhelming. Hell, after 10 years we couldn't defeat the North Vietnamese with all of our firepower short of using nuclear weapons and igniting another world war. You think they'll do that to their own country?
Then there's all of the retired law enforcement and military veterans that have been trained in both military and law enforcement tactics who are also staunch defenders of the 2nd Amendment. A massive well trained army unto itself.
But keep on trying to abolish our civil liberties and Constitutional Law. You really have no idea of what the reality is that you will have to deal with in the event of a civil war. You'll never win, that you can count on.
Please do some critical thinking before spouting off such nonsense!
We've had administrations where the Democrats have controlled all three branches of government. They would like to see nothing less than for all privately held firearms to be confiscated and destroyed. So the question is: Why didn't they use military force when they had the power to do so?
you are assuming that if the government turned the military on the citizenry, that the entire military would step up and follow orders, and that just isnt the case. you also seem to think that if the citizenry stepped up to overthrow a tyrannical government, that it would be a few guys with a few rifles, and again that isnt the case.
there are enough people that with just rifles, could overwhelm military units even with air cover, tank and artillery. and there would be military units that would side with the citizens, and bring their equipment with them.
Isn't that what ya'll believe would happen at some point and ya'll would need all of your guns because of this reason? If not, then the entire standing against the government argument is invalidated.
Yeah, sure you do genius. Anyway for what it's worth I don't believe you.
Either that or you're a hypocrite of the worst order. You know, one of those "it's okay for me, but not for thee". UNDERSTAND?
You might want to quit while you think you're ahead otherwise you might end up with egg on your face.
Damn , I should have gone ahead and posted my prediction. It was easily predictable that the response would be " I don't believe you own guns" whenever a gun owner questions the logic of every nutter in the country having access to semi auto rifles.
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.
)
