This is a logical fallacy. One should never restrict rights over what a few people do. Assuming each murder was by a different person, and not a multiple homicide, and assuming each murder was done by an actual US citizen (which we know illegals are likely perpetrators for crimes as seen by their high numbers in our prison system) it would still only show that .002% of the population committed murder with firearms. Let's also look at if we averaged the murders out which over 365 days would equate to 23.52 murders a day. Again assuming that each murder was perpetrated by a different person they still only constitute tiny fraction of a percentage of gun owners in this country. It's quite sad and quite maddening that so many people blame an inanimate object for when clearly the problem lies with the culture and mentality of society. You gun control morons think just throwing more and more laws will take care of the issue, but you're just covering the proximate causes not the root causes. Criminals don't care about laws and murderers will always find a way to kill someone. Nor should any free person suffer their rights to be stomped on for a false sense of security. --- Murder by firearms: 8,583 in 2011 Gun ownership: ~90 per 100 people Total US Population: 313,914,040 (at last census) Actually, for the most part it has been conservatives who have been the champion of the veterans. Is the system perfect? (*)(*)(*)(*) no, but the liberals don't really support us and I know many veterans who told me stories of the liberals spitting on them if they were seen in uniform.
Hmmmmm - see that is the problem right there - finding the "responsible citizen" remembering that a criminal is often just a citizen who has actually been caught doing something wrong
So arm them all. The responsible citizens will outnumber the criminals, instead of the criminal being the only armed person in the room.
Consider great britain. They have a crash rate that is higher than the US. And yet, our crash resulting in deaths rate is much much higher. In fact, among industrialized nations, the US has a comparable total crash rate. And yet, our crashes resulting in deaths rate is the highest. Why is that? Why do we have such a low rate of total crashes, but such a high rate of ones resulting in death? Well, it's simple--if you use bicycle it is much less likely to result in death than if you use a gas guzzling SUV. Less cars = less deaths. And consider the death of Chris Kyle - he was an LAPD pursuit driver, who broke the record for successful pursuits in Compton. He was a vehicle specialist and an avid supporter of cars and SUV ownership. He was crushed to death last week by a fellow car owner in a crash. It goes to show you that owning a car does not make you safe. In fact, it makes it MORE likely for you to die. So if you own a car, and you hang around people who also own cars, your chances for being killed are way higher, than if you don't own a car and you hang around people who don't own cars. Simple, but statistically true. [HR][/HR] Statistics used in this way are meaningless because they leave out the fact that people have a right to use both cars and guns. It's irrelivant what effect their ownership has on the public - the fact is ownership of either doesn't directly hurt anyone - and since we can't outlaw the illegitimate uses of cars (running people over, vehicular homicide, etc) or guns (people shooting others) without also outlawing the legitimate uses (transport for cars, collection and sport for guns).
You can compare stats between US and UK, but the countries are not apples to apples. Our culture and history is different that yours so you can't expect us to conform to your thinking. We have the 2nd amendment and the bill of rights that many many people have died to protect. You are right, people do die due to irresponsible use of guns, however, we as a free society understand that it is the price we pay to enjoy our freedoms. Our country was founded based on these basic freedoms, and like I said, many people have died to insure we continue to have the freedom to make our own choices.
As someone who enlisted with the understanding that I might die for my country, I'd like to point out that every person's freedom is limited by the freedoms of those around them... You have freedom of speech, but I have the right not to listen to you. Similarly, you have the right to maintain weapons, but I have the right not to be shot... Preventing me from being shot by your firearms is called "gun control", and it doesn't have to (shouldn't) consist of banning.
Or perhaps it means that if you are stronger than the person that you wish to hurt, whether your weapon is a knife, a hammer or a gun makes much less difference?
Uhh, pardon me, but the principle is that one person's liberty ends were another's liberty begins. Most people interpret that to mean that my liberty is limited to the extent that it interfere's with yours. Most people would not interpret that to mean that my liberty is limited to the extent that the liberty of someone else interferes with yours. There is a dramatic difference.
Have you done anything wrong?? Yes there are a lot of decent people out there and usually they outnumber the crooks but how do we know BEFORE they are CONVICTED of a crime that they will turn out to be criminals? How do we tell the "responsible people" from those who are irresponsible? There are some indicators a) alcoholism b) drug taking c) mental illness (some at least are associated with higher criminal activity)
I just feel that as a society we look pretty sick. Killing children is sad and irreprehensable but I don't think passing more gun control laws are the answer. If you ban high capacity magazines there are so many in circulation now it would be a moot point. Everyone I know owns a gun. None of them would even consider using it other than self or family defense. I don't know the cause but it seems that some of the younger people in this country are detached from reality and life (other than their own) has little or no value. And I am not so sure that some of the medication that is delt out like candy for every little behavior problem that comes along may be a factor....but i have no proof.
If you do not arm yourself, and someone shoots you because you failed to utilize your Right to self-defense, it is not the lawful gun owners fault that you failed, it is yours. It is not society's responsibility to keep you and your family safe, that's your job. If you fail to take any and all means to accomplish this end, it is merely your failing. There are no guarantees in life, none whatsoever, with one small exception, everybody gets the same ticket. I have the Right to own and carry. That does not give me the Right to go out on a killing spree. In every case, the perpetrators have paid for their actions with their lives. At the end of each event, a gun was used to stop them. This is a fact. Justice has prevailed. What you are doing is joining a witch hunt, holding a particluar portion of society responsible for an event which you weren't even part of. You do have the Right to LIfe, but it is a Right you must be prepared to defend, not surrender to some government to do for you. If you do, then your life becomes dependent upon someone who lives 2000 miles away from you. They are not going to be able to protect you, so if you want the Right to Life, you must be prepared to protect it yourself. Whose Rights have I violated? If my existence is a violation, tough (*)(*)(*)(*)! I have a Right to it, as well. How I protect myself is none of your concern. You're the one having strange visions, not me.
a law abiding citizen is a person not breaking laws, whether he has been caught at it, or not. a criminal is a person breaking laws, whether he has been caught at it, or not. and a person who has been convicted of a crime with a gun. may be a former law abiding citizen who got unlucky the first time he broke the law. however, the majority of those who are convicted for gun crimes. are on a first name basis with the police only, not in a polite way. and as far as i know, no one is keeping track of those caught not committing crimes. .
I don’t think there is anyone that hasn’t made a mistake or two in their life. Yes, there are indicators. But what do you do? But nobody pays attention to them. Our laws are such that you are innocent until proven guilty. Example A woman reports that she is being stalked by “someone”. The police will ask her if “someone” has done anything to her. And she’ll say well “no” but I am afraid them. The police tell her that they can’t do anything because “someone” hasn’t done anything wrong. There are false accusations made every day. • It could be a misunderstanding on the part of the accuser. • It could be because someone is mad at someone. (false accusation) • It could be true. Who knows? When do you start putting this on someone’s history? Do you ruin a life now because you think they might do something bad later? Who knows? A lot of the information could be used for the wrong reasons…. Like I said before “innocent until proven guilty”. Tucson shooter – there were indicators Aurora shooter – there were indicators Sandy Hook shooter – there were indicators But nobody took them serious. Twenty years ago, the NRA tried to get mental records to show on background checks. It still hasn’t happened. Until they do, universal background checks are a waste of time…. I guess it should be “guilty until proven innocent” Especially gun owners…..
What a weird rant... 1) I never asked for anyone else to defend me, as I don't see an emminent risk that I need to be defended from. 2) "In every case, the perpetrators have paid for their actions with their lives..." Really? So how come there are still criminals? 3) You don't seem to have a problem with the government regulations in regards to food quality, vehicle safety, etc... By your logic, isn't that "depending on someone 2000 miles away" to provide for your safety? 4) Even though you still insist that the universe revolves around you, this is a societal issue and isn't completely dependent on any one person. YOU are not the issue, though the mentality and attitude you exhibit are indicative of the issue.
1) already stated. It is your Right to choose 2) this is an idiotic statement. There will always be criminals as long as there are laws. Ridiculous analogy 3) Nope. My car is my responsibility to maintain in a safe manner.....I grow my own food and buy meat from the locals( What I don't kill) 4)No. You want the universe to revolve around you. You want to change reality to fit your wants and meager needs. You are the guy with visions of dead children.....want me to pull it up again?
And wouldn't it be nice if her stalker could not just walk into a gun shop a buy a gun? After all he has done nothing wrong yet either. As for your "indicators" - how many reached the right people to send alarm bells? Even if they did send alarm bells - how many of those "indications" would have been investigated as being unique enough to warrant it?
If a person has not been convicted of a crime he or she should be allowed to purchase a gun. It might be a good idea to ask what kind of medications they take. We were in Wal Mart today and a man purchased a rifle that at least resembled an assault rifle. I ask for an M-60 machine gun and 2,000 rounds of ammo but they said they didn't carry them. Since i was buying a fishing license i told them I was going to use it for fishing. They run the background check right at the store. I want a pump shotgun for home defense...just the sound would run off any intruder! And since I am older and my aim isn't what it used to be.
Couple of things I wanted to bring up about this, I did some research on home defense weaponry and have done a lot of test myself and these are the conclusions I have come up with. A shotgun, if acurately shot, would take down an intruder no problem. There are some things though that make this an overall poor choice for home defense. In multiple tests for penetration, a buck shot penetrated 3 double sided walls 10 feet apart and damaged the 4th, while pistol rounds penetrated 2 walls and the .223 round (commonly chambered in AR platform rifles) didn't even penetrate one, it broke apart in the first layer and did not go through the other side. As for the theory of aiming, the spread of a buckshot at 10 feet is the same size as the shell itself, so a very accurate shot is still required, plus the recoil and the pump make bringing the sights back on target more difficult than a semi auto rifle. As for the theory of a shotgun racking and scaring an intruding off, not all shotguns sound the same and hearing tests showed that many people could not identify it. Through the tests I have conducted and the tests of others I have researched and were shown to concluded the same, the shotgun actually ranked along the lowest and had more drawbacks while a semi automatic rifles always rank the highest, especially the AR 15. Sorry about the novel, I never pass up an oppurtunity to share my knowledge on the subject!
Best way to sum up this entire way of thinking. Implements of killing are basically irrelevant. People will kill people if you reduce gun supply. They will just use things like base ball bats, and cars. You know, things they can get easily.
You obviously don't know what an analogy is... I'll give you a hint: me pointing out that you've said something stupid (like "all criminals have been killed") is NOT an analogy. So you have nothing in common with over 95% of the people in the country... So why should your opinions be considered when legislating on a national level? Actually, you're the one who seems to feel more "manly" with a firearm, and who believes your need to maintain a penile compensation accessory is so important that it should determine national policy... When did I discuss envisioninge dead children? If you think that kids being chased off an old geriatric's lawn is the same as kids being killed, you're more senile than I thought.
so, this is your absolute best/worst? Insulting always wins an argument.........name calling looks so good on you....... dude, it's your vision, not mine. I think, because a person is so fixated on death they remain blind to reality, is in need of help. I am in agreement with you this one time...you should never own a weapon.
.. and by this logic it makes it even easier for the innocent to defend themselves and stop the crime. Gun control is, in essence, a criminals best friend. It's like a green light that says "go and kill. Your victim is disarmed."
Hello pot, kettle calling... Dude, do you need me to remind me how many times you've gone out of your way to be insulting? You've routinely referred to me as a "collaborator" until I illustreted how stupid that was, then moved on to insisting I'd murder my own family if given a chance... Now you want to complain because I said you're an old man who only uses his weapon to chase kids off his lawn? Seriously, you're supposed to grow up as you grow old.
