When are people going to start looking at the facts about gun control, and realize that ultimately, it does not work as advertised. Statistic after statistic shows that the more gun control there is, the higher the crime rate. Chicago and DC are perfect examples of that. Gun control just takes the ability of law-abiding citizens from fully exercising their right to protect themselves and their loved ones. I have been listening to MSNBC (MSLSD) lately just to see the garbage they are spewing. It is unbelievable the morons they have on there talking about guns and gun control. It is obvious how ignorant they are. Last night on The Ed Show, the big goon was blasting gun rights folks by saying that there really has not been many instances of someone armed in the crowd at a gun massacre that stepped in to save the day. Of course, he did not mention that most of the locations of these massacres were located in so-called "gun-free" zones. Law-abiding citizens are just following the law. Michael Bloomberg (Bloomturd) was on this morning spewing more nonsense about guns and gun control. He blasted the NRA by saying that if hand held nuclear missle launchers were available, they would demand that gun folks should be able to carry those. How pathetic and juvenile of him. He's a jackass. This tragedy is CT is the result of mental illness gone unchecked and the killer's mother not taking precautions to keep her guns away from her son. In fact, CT already has an assault weapons ban in place, but the AR-15 that was used did not fit the guidelines. Of course, any rational thinking person would realize that banned objects are still acquired by those desperate enough to get them. The gun control debate is sure to start raging like a wildfire through Washington. I just hope enough politicians use their heads, and shoot down (pun intended) any useless crap coming from idiots trying to restrict law-abiding citizens.
Globally, slaughters have been the impetus for gun regulation... Around world, massacres have spurred gun control Dec 18,`12 -- If there's anywhere that understands the pain of Newtown, it's Dunblane, the town whose grief became a catalyst for changes to Britain's gun laws. See also: Newtown shootings: Obama 'backs assault weapons ban' 18 December 2012 - White House spokesman Jay Carney said the president supported legislation on the so-called 'gun show loophole'
conservatives keep on making the same tired pro-gun arguments over and over again. to the point where we have the most guns of any country in the world. this has got to stop.
The USSC has not yet ruled whether limitations on assault weapons are constitutional. Now however is a good time to find out, with 5 of the justices somewhat pro gun.
I don't think guns are the problem. The problem are scared people. If the media (news-media primarily) creates the notion that you and your family are under sever danger and that nobody will ever help you - especially the government - then guns are a problem. Afraid or scared people don't react calm and rational. One of the highest gun-per-capita rates in the world is Switzerland with somewhere between 1.2 to 3 million guns in the private residences of its approximately 8 million citizens. In 2006 there were 34 recorded murders or attempted murders with a gun, representing a firearm homicide rate of 1 per 250,000. To compare this to the US: In metropolitan areas, the homicide rate in 2005 was 6.1 per 100,000 compared with 3.5 in non-metropolitan counties. In U.S. cities with populations greater than 250,000, the mean homicide rate was 12.1 per 100,000. And I don't believe that the people in the US are that much different from the people anywhere else on the planet. I just get the feeling that their media scares them and people arm themselves against unlikely threats. I cannot judge, but I get the feeling that Americans have no trust in the people around them or their own government.
i was a very naive person, somehow believing the sheltered life I'd grown up in was actually real. I was not scared by the media. I didnt and dont think I am in severe danger. I think my trust in the govt or people around me is "reasonable and proportionate". I thought that the threat I might face was remote, unreal. Its not. I do my best to make it unlikely, and would not take the kind of (what turned out to be) risk of being alone that I did. I consequently felt a need to be armed at home, or in the car; sometimes a "carry piece' on my person You are quite right that you cannot judge, we are each individuals with our own situations. Mine is as I described, or was... Im not in the USA now, We cant have guns here. I dont especially trust the gov't here either. Thanks for your thoughts tho.
..then stop with the fear mongering, get off your knees, quit acting like a subject, and take up your post and support your Constitution as a proper Citizen. Only slaves and subjects are unarmed. Citizens are not unarmed
..then stop with the fear mongering, get off your knees, quit acting like a subject, and take up your post and support your Constitution as a proper Citizen. Only slaves and subjects are unarmed. Citizens are not unarmed
We probably have more automobiles than any other country. It has to stop! Oh wait, having the most of X is not necessarily bad.
i am unarmed. I am not a slave. I love my life. I love my country. I love my government. I don't have the need for arms because everything is going just fine! If you feel like you need to take up arms because you hate your government, your country, or your life, then that's too bad for you.
yea--and the other day, I saw an autistic kid without a gun, not killing 20 school children. Cool eh?
It's important to think about the actual impacts of a policy change rather than the goodness or badness of guns per se (same goes for drug policy, conservatives). You actually cannot solve this policy problem with intuition alone. On the one hand, the left notes that guns make it easier to kill people, so more guns seem to mean more death. On the other hand, the right points out that making laws against guns simply means that law-abiding citizens are even less well-armed than criminals. Successful criminals adjust their victimization strategies by knowing their victims and choosing soft targets or finding ways of achieving material gain (e.g. non-violent crimes) that are less likely to get them killed if they think their targets are going to be armed. So who's right? The best way to determine this would be to study the impact of policy change on rates of violence. People often point out that Washington DC has a high violence rate and strict gun control. More important than this is the fact that violent crime in DC actually went up compared to other cities when a gun ban was put in place. This tells us that one of two things are true. Either banning guns made violence worse, or controlling guns did little to solve the problem of violence and other factors were to blame. Thus, gun control, at least in the DC form, is not an effective policy for reducing violence and other solutions should be sought. Let me know if you know of other examples where gun policy changed and violence went up or down. Here's a source for what I said: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I don't know, and to be honest I don't really care if gun control will or will not decrease gun violence, because... 1. One should never coerce others; gun control inherently does this. 2. The government has no mechanism for enacting such legislation while the 2nd Amendment remains as is.
Liberals make the same baseless arguments over and over to the point where I want to puke. Liberals have to stop the nonsense.
