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's because he/she has no argument. Especially when it's proven that something they support is a complete failure except in the most extreme circumstance.
Indeed it is completely insane to suggest doing the same for every public building or even private places that are posted as "gun free zones". Realistically what are the odds that anyone of us will become a victim of a mass shooting?
To put things into perspective, I did a little research. In shootings involving four or more victims in the US and with a population of 330,000,000 people your odds of being killed in one is infinitesimal. You stand a better chance of being struck by lightning or being killed in a motor vehicle accident or drowning.
87 people were killed in the Happyland Fire in 1990 in which what was a dollars worth of gas at the time, a container and match was the weapon of choice. That's 28 more than what Paddock killed with a bunch of AR 15's equipped with bump stocks firing into a crowd of thousands from a hotel room.
Unintentional Drowning Deaths in the United States, 1999–2010 www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db149.htm
A total of 46,419 people died from unintentional drowning in the United States from 1999 through 2010, an average of 3,868 deaths per year.
Now, compare the number of people killed by their own government.
Funny how those concerned about protecting life only want government, with the greatest number of innocent lives taken by an unimaginable number, to have guns.
When I was living on my little ranch a response by the deputies or EMS was a half hour away at best. We had to be ready to defend ourselves and for emergency medical situations. In addition to being well armed we had an adequate medical supply and had had training in emergency medical procedure.
Someone getting hurt was not an if but a when. Thankfully we never had to start an IV or clamp off blood vessels on a severed limb but we could have if we had to. As to being armed that was just as much of a gimme. The highway was just a few miles away and we did have transients wander in up to no good intent. Mostly it was four legged varmints we had to deal with but we did have some two legged issues.
Never went outside without a sidearm and certainly we were armed when we had to saddle up and go. There was always a means of self defense (and medical aid) available. We couldn't depend on fast help from the SO or EMS. We were to far out. This mentality has stuck with me even though I live in a far more developed area now.
One needs to be ready and able. Depending on the various public agencies just doesn't compute.
I live in a small city. Last Sunday my grandson encountered a trespasser/vandal in their yard. She grabbed him, he broke away. He called the police and then me. I was 3 miles away, the police are one mile away. I beat them there. The trespasser was gone when I got there. This time it was kind of funny. She was a woman in her 40s, probably 120 lbs. My grandson is 14, 6ft tall and 260 lbs. in his 4th year of football. He said he thought about punching her but did not want to hurt her. I told him he did the right thing.
Now, compare the number of people killed by their own government.
Funny how those concerned about protecting life only want government, with the greatest number of innocent lives taken by an unimaginable number, to have guns.
You're definitely on to something there. Just try to imagine if the Venezuelan population had the "right to keep and bear arms"?
Our adversaries know that all the gun laws in the world will do nothing to make anyone safer. God only knows that there are already thousands of gun laws on the books, along with thousands of laws that address every conceivable criminal act imaginable. They're using the fear of crime and becoming a victim of a mass shooting as a means to an end. They know that they can never enslave an entire population to their warped political ideology as long as we remain armed. That's really what it's all about. It's no coincidence that the majority of Democrats are in favor of gun control and likewise Republicans are opposed.
What better way is there to punish your political adversaries than to criminalize their lawful behavior and possessions when you have the means and power at your disposal? Which begs the question of what comes next if we are to ever be successfully disarmed?
So now they use the words "gun safety" instead of "gun control" as it sounds less threatening. But it's the same old s**t just a different ass. When people have to lie about and try to disguise their real agenda. That agenda can't be any good to begin with. If enacted the people will indeed revolt. So it stands to reason that we must first be disarmed. That is all except for the politicians and their henchmen and those who keep them in power.
The United States of America was founded as a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy in order to prevent tyranny by the majority or mob rule. God help us if we lose that concept.
Quote:
Constitutional Republic:
A Constitutional Republic is a form of government where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, representatives mandated to govern according to existing constitutional law. It is because of this mandate that the elected class in a Constitutional Republic is limited in their power over the citizenry. The United States of America was created as and intended to survive as a Constitutional Republic.
Our Constitutional Republic is separated into three separate but equal branches of government; the Executive, Legislative and Judicial, represented by the Presidency, Congress and the Courts. Because of this no branch has a rein on absolute power thus assuring that there will be checks and balances to the governmental system and protection for the rule of law.
Through the elected representation employed by our Constitutional Republic the influence of the majority is tempered by protections for individual rights as mandated by constitutional law. Our form of government is deliberate in its attempt to thwart majoritarianism, thereby protecting political dissent and individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who are required to legislate with limits of overarching constitutional law which a simple majority cannot modify.
"A pure unbridled democracy is a political system in which the majority enjoys absolute power by means of democratic elections. In an unvarnished democracy, unrestrained by a constitution, the majority can vote to impose tyranny on themselves and the minority opposition. They can vote to elect those who will infringe upon our inalienable God-given rights. Thomas Jefferson referred to this as elected despotism in Notes on the State of Virginia (also cited in Federalist 48 by Madison):"
How often are there intentional shootings at gun ranges?
If guns were the problem, wouldn't gun ranges be the scenes of constant blood bathes?
The murders of Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield occurred on February 2, 2013, at a shooting range near Chalk Mountain, Texas. Former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, 38, and Chad Littlefield, 35, were both killed by Eddie Ray Routh, a 25-year old Marine.
The murders of Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield occurred on February 2, 2013, at a shooting range near Chalk Mountain, Texas. Former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, 38, and Chad Littlefield, 35, were both killed by Eddie Ray Routh, a 25-year old Marine.
So once again coming up with single examples and claiming that one example invalidates a thesis (and a single example from 6 years ago at that). Gotta admit, you seem to be pretty good at that strategy (based on a reasonable sample size of course).
The murders of Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield occurred on February 2, 2013, at a shooting range near Chalk Mountain, Texas. Former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, 38, and Chad Littlefield, 35, were both killed by Eddie Ray Routh, a 25-year old Marine.
So once again coming up with single examples and claiming that one example invalidates a thesis (and a single example from 6 years ago at that). Gotta admit, you seem to be pretty good at that strategy (based on a reasonable sample size of course).
A Georgia man was killed at an indoor gun range — when a member of his party inadvertently fired at him over Memorial Day weekend, officials said.
If you need more examples just let me know, there’s quite a few. Otherwise enjoy crow.
Please don't tell me your trying to compare an accidental shooting. A negligent discharge accidental manslaughter to a determined and cold blooded mass murdering active shooter.
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.
