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 for sociologists. And you presume to have discovered THE root cause?! That's doubtful.
You're correct, there isn't a "root cause" , there are many of them. None of which are being addressed by adding laws, restrictions, or bans that only the law abiding will follow.
Doubtful ? That is your opinion, which your entitled to. Mine differs from yours, it's okay.
If the issue is second amendment self-defense, then why don’t we invent a smart gun for civilians that uses GPS and camera capabilities to only fire bullets when the trigger is pulled and the aim is on someone who is also in possession of a gun?
So this would be a true self-defense weapon where the gun specifically will fire only on aggressors and automatically not allow any firings on anyone else. This could be a gun for the home. It could also have the capability to fire as normal but only for a separate cartridge where the bullets are non-fatal such as bibi gun bullets which would be a tool for scaring perpetrators and causing minor injury without causing death.
No. The American people wish to have an offensive capability beyond what is needed for "defense." The government lacks the right to restrict that.
No oxymoronic at all. That is, unless you believe a law will be followed universally. Then no one would become a criminal by criminally obtaining a gun.
The one universal thing is, criminals don't GAF about laws. So good luck trying to come up with a law, that will prevent a criminal from getting a firearm without violating the rights of others. If you figure that one out, you should contact the Biden administration and present this to them. You'd be a hero.
NO! You want a civil war, this is how to do it, and YOU are on the losing end!
How would that turn out? The other side won't have any guns because they think they should be banned. So only one side would have access to guns and ammo.
That's exactly my point. In Britain they don't have a second amendment. They have gun control laws. And yet they are not laboring under tyrannical government oppression over there, are they?
And by the way, in Britain they are innocent until proven guilty. Our judicial system was mostly based on the English one.
The laws are fine. The problem is obviously Americans.
I'm not checking out a broken window or a kicked in door at 2am with a dang bat.
Things to consider:
1. A bat will not go through the wall and kill a neighbor. I have a friend whose daughter was killed by her husband when he was cleaning his pistol and forgot there was a round in the chamber.
2. McDonald v. IL turned on home self-defense with a pistol but a coach gun may be better and was already legal. SCOTUS and the city's lawyers not being that familiar with guns, they did not bring that fact up. A shotgun is much safer bu harder to bring to bear on a target indoors.
3. A dog is a great early-warning system. Can you imagine what the result is if you shoot someone in your house? I've shot deer and the result is not pretty.
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.
