For those of you who fear guns.......

With over 8 million active concealed carry licences in the U.S. do you think that you never are around guns? As you navigate your daily life, when you are at the grocery store, when you go to K-mart, while you are waiting to get your haircut, when you are at your kids soccer game, chances are that often you are in close proximity to a handgun. I often think when I look at people, which ones would have a problem with me sitting 4ft from them if they new I was carrying, and which ones would feel safer knowing there is an armed and trained person near them.
My point is this ... this all happens everyday, without incident. We are bound by law to keep it concealed and never pull it out unless an aggravated felony is occuring to us, or those around us.
We have chosen to make personal safety our responsibility.
We are your friends.

 

But they are sceeery, I have a onesided BS statistic link that shows thing kinda but not exactly related to what we are talking about, your more likely to shoot yourself or someone innocent, you don't need a gun, bring a knife to a gunfight instead - said every media brainwashed gun control drone....

 

Hmmmm - Firearm homicide rate for USA,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 3.6 per 100,000

Australia ............................0.3073

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_fir_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop

'nuff said

 

I am only afraid of a gun when it is pointed at me and the person behind the trigger knows what they are doing. Otherwise they are just deadly toys.

But then again I am not crazy about gun control, I just don't think its the end of the world.

 

8 million people out of 333 or so million. Lot of people, but I doubt I'll come into personal contact with someone one. And it's not about the gun itself, it's the perception that they're going to do something irresponsible with it.

 

Maybe I am just being racist here, but would it be too much to ask for you to find a non-white country where the murder rate has gone down after they banned guns?

I can think of plenty of countries with very strict gun control laws, where murder rates are higher than the USA. Brazil, for example.

Actually, I think the murder rate in Australia is higher now than historically when there were few restrictions on guns (and when the country was whiter).
Take a look here, you can see how much worse the murder rate in Australia is now than 50-80 years ago when gun ownership was very widespread,
http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/6/B/1/{6B1709A3-F1A6-47BD-9D33-D31074FC0478}ti61.pdf

 

Yep! You are being racist

Australia is no longer officially "white" it is multicultural

And I am thrilled beyond telling that you have actually linked to something - no honestly I am - no sarcasm. I LIKE it when people link to sources to back themselves up...........................only they really really really should READ them first - the paper you linked to was dated 1996 - the year of the gun buy back

I have to admit that the AIC is NOT the easiest website to navigate but if you look here http://aic.gov.au/statistics.html

You will find some more up to date stats like this one

http://aic.gov.au/statistics/violent crime.html

 

The facts don't support your perception.

 

A) that is being racist
B) Australia has enough asian, aboriginal and middle eastern communities that it's no more "white" than the US.

Yeah, but are any of the countries you can think of first-world democracies? If not, they are not comparable to the US. It would be like me comparing the US to countries with NO gun control, like Iraq...

Actually, I believe there are as many guns in Australia as before the Port Arthur incident... Their ownership is now just more tightly regulated. That's been enough to reduce the death by firearm statistics...
The overal murder rate PER CAPITA is lower, the base number is roughly the same only because population has dramatically increased over the last 80 years. FAIL.

 

Wanting to avoid morons having guns is not about fear of guns.
Wanting to avoid criminals having guns is not about fear of guns.

If I took a drunk person's keys, would you take it as a sign that I'm afraid of cars?

Unfortunately, you can't legislate against morons, and you can't know for sure who may become a criminal - so the only way of ensuring they have a hard time getting guns is by establishing a single standard for EVERYONE.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

 

That's more than 2.4 out of every 100 people that you encounter every day have concealed carry licenses. It's a miracle you are still alive. Your fear is irrational. People who choose to take responsibility for their own safety are not committing crime. In fact they are 13 times less likely to commit felonys. They have been fingerprinted,photoed, passed state and federal background checks, had to pass firearm proficiency testing and waited months to actually receive the license.

 

In other words it is OK to infringe on rights because you are unwilling to address the real problem.

 

Actually Australia's murder rate is 1.2 per 100,000 but neither do they have the gangs and police shootings that accompany them.

According to Time;
"Sharing the shock of his people, the newly elected Prime Minister, John Howard — just two months into his eleven-and-a-half years in power — seized the chance to overhaul Australia's gun laws, trampling all opposition to make them among the strictest in the developed world. Howard argued the tougher laws would make Australia safer. But 12 years on, new research suggests the government response to Port Arthur was a waste of public money and has made no difference to the country's gun-related death rates".

"But these changes have done nothing to reduce gun-related deaths", according to Samara McPhedran, a University of Sydney academic and coauthor of a soon-to-be-published paper that reviews a selection of previous studies on the effects of the 1996 legislation. The conclusions of these studies were "all over the place," says McPhedran. But by pulling back and looking purely at the statistics, the answer "is there in black and white," she says. "The hypothesis that the removal of a large number of firearms owned by civilians [would lead to fewer gun-related deaths] is not borne out by the evidence."

Government officials also admitted that there is no evidence that any criminals ever turned in any guns.

 

And a vast majority of those will be law abiding citizens - just as a vast majority of those WITHOUT guns will be law abiding citizens but that does not take away the fact that having a firearm means you may use it when you "lose it"

http://www.csgv.org/index.php?optio...gun-permit-holders-in-2009&catid=51&Itemid=74

 

Wow, no sources on any of this?

Obviously no criminals turned in guns... But they would have had a heck of a time replacing them every time a gun cache was seized by police...

 

Do you believe that laws establishing controls over such substances as cyanide and ammonium nitrate based fertilizers are a result of being "unwilling to address the real problem"?
Please, highlight the "real problem" in relation to gun use...

 

Sorry, I am unwilling to play your diversion game. If you are unable tot sustain intelligent debate about a subject stop responding.

 

You indicated a belief that controlling the availability of inanimate tool does not address the "real problem". I asked if you believe this includes controls on cyanide and explosive components. In what way is this diversionary?
The fact that your position makes no sense and you have no answers does not mean I'm not playing fair... It means you may want to rethink your position in order to continue considering yourself a rational person.

 

Statistic show that that just doesn't happen. If it did the media would be all over it.

 

Sometimes it doesn't matter what the truth is, but what people percieve the truth to be.

 

Of course it's irrational. It's what people percieve to be the truth.

 

You are attempting to side step the issue with irrelevant diversions.
If control works so well they why is the war on drugs so successful or why was prohibition so successful?

The fact that you are clueless about my position does not render it without sense. It only makes you not understand it.

No need to rethink anything on my part. Educating yourself better on the topic would on the other hand make you a rational debater.

 

How is the control of other items used to produce death irrelevent to this topic?

You mean in comparison to making all drugs legal? Not saying that a total ban is necessarily the right answer, just that greater CONTROLS need to be in place than those that exist currently.

Perhaps, if your position is not clearly understood, you could clearly outline it.

A person who refuses to consider the possibility of reevaluating their position, even if valid contradictory points are made... Not a sign of a rational person.

My education is not a point on which you could be considered a subject matter expert, so I will choose to ignore this childish jibe.

 

The topic being guns, it is irrelevant unless of course you can provide reason for relevancy, which you have not.

Then what exactly are you saying?

Reading comprehension is not your strong point either. I made no reference to your education only a suggestion to better educate yourself on the topic.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...HISWVAEYZjIFdXWfFg0eCBw&bvm=bv.41524429,d.cGE