There has always been debate and contention about whether or not people should own guns. There are many people who are firmly anti-gun, and there are equally as many people who believe that when used responsibly, there is nothing wrong with owning a gun. What do you think?
We can find many purposes for guns like hunting bucks, and small game. However, in a civilized society we shouldn't really need them for much else, unless the Chinese and the Russians start WW III by invading America. So, yeah, we should have them and know how to use them and teach our kids gun safety. Keep 'em locked up in a safe, though.
”The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits. … and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
~St. George Tucker
One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.”
Absolutely, the second amendment was meant for defense against a tyrannical government, not for game hunting.
As to weather guns are good or bad. They are an object made of metal. they posses no soul so they have no inclination to be either way.
I agree with you, the right to bear arms provides a last line of defense against a rogue government and may also provide a deterrent for such an occurance.
Please give me an example of exactly when the U.S. Government would be considered a "rogue government" by the general populace.
Surely are more likely to be brain washed by advertising and sedated into submission by fast food, than threatened by a government gun.
We wouldn't know would we? Most of us are armed and capable of fighting back.
Well can you give an example of a scenario where the general populace would need to shoot the government?
http://www.naturalnews.com/036698_polic … ctims.html
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
A dreadful case of incompetence by one law enforcement unit. A complaint has been filed, and a remedy of $30 million is being sought through the legal system. Should the individual officers named in the case be found guilty of wrongdoing, they also face getting fired, and potential criminal charges.
Can you explain why this would be a cause for the general populace of the U.S. to shoot the government?
An invasion of my home would result in a shooting. Yes a mistake was made, government seems to make a lot of mistakes. This is not an isolated case this happens all the time.
[EDIT] So you think incompetent policing is a government conspiracy?
An executive order eliminating our right to keep and bear arms wouldn't surprise me, that would be an example of a rogue government. Our reaction as citizens would most likely be a violent one when that order was being enforced. Any attempt at taking our rights away is an example of a rogue government and should be resisted by force if necessary.
Apologies, I think I edited by comment as you were posting.
Do you think it's really a plausible scenario that all the checks and balances in place to prevent such a thing (other than people with guns) would fail at once, and that this would happen? Really?
For example, you don't think such an Executive Order would be struck down by the Supreme Court?
I don't think an executive order can be struck down by anyone. Checks and balances...really. The U.S. government has never run anything efficiently and you want me to depend on their checks and balances?
Two Executive Orders have been overturned by courts in the past, and Congress can overturn Executive Orders by passing legislation that conflicts. The President retains the right to veto, but that can be overturned by a 2/3 majority vote. And of course Executive Orders can be overturned by future presidents. So any such Executive Order could be overturned. No revolution needed.
Do you have an example of a plausible scenario where you think the U.S. government would be deemed "rogue" by the general populace, and an armed insurrection considered the only option available? I'm struggling to envisage one.
I have given you the scenario. We have not reached the point of the executive order and you already have it stricken down by the supreme court. You have a lot more faith in our government than I do.
No, you've given me a scenario that requires a President committing political suicide by trying to effectively repeal the second amendment with an Executive Order, with both Democrats and Republicans in Congress agreeing, and the Supreme Court agreeing too. I asked for a plausible scenario. That isn't one.
Someone said "the right to bear arms provides a last line of defence against a rogue government". Fine. But I'm struggling here to envisage such a scenario that doesn't sit within the realms of fantasy, or the annals history. So gme a plausible scenario where the general population of the United States, in the 21st century, would have no other recourse but violent revolution.
A President in his second term can not commit political suicide whats he going to do after being President? I have given you the scenario and see no reason to continue with this.
No, but all those in Congress who hope to have a political future can commit political suicide by supporting such an order.
It's as I expected, there is no plausible scenario where the the general populace of the U.S. in the 21st century would have no alternative but violent revolution. Only implausible, fantasy scenarios.
Saying "the right to bear arms is the last line of defence against a rogue government" might have been reasonable in 1776. Now, it's just stupid. You may as well wear a tin foil hat and tell people to carry guns in case the Martians attack. As far as I'm concerned such paranoid, delusional rantings have no place in a sensible discussion about firearms.
When they invaded my home without warrant it is reducing my freedom, can you not see that?
EDIT you did a lot of editing
From times of ancient history up until the present there has always been a demand for a weapon. If guns are banned there would be bows & arrows, when they are banned, there would be knives.
Now look to the future, if guns are banned then what is to stop high powered lasers. Or even Tasers.
As long as life exists on this earth there are those who need a weapon to get what they want by illicit means, and the other half of the population will need a weapon to stop the other half.
Get over the gun issue, just because you ban guns doesn't mean that crime will stop. And if you ban guns you can NOT defend yourself against a corrupt government in the future.
you may stop 5 year olds from being killed at school though. Depends what your priorities are: your right to bear arms or innocent childen's lives. It seems the people of the US prioritize the former.
It would seem as though these types of things happen on both sides of the pond.
1996 Dunblane School Massacre
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/noto … index.html
In this country, when stricter gun laws are in place, the crime rate tends to go up. It seems the criminals couldn't care less about the gun laws,
whether they're strict or not and, if they are, they know their victims are far less likely to be able to protect themselves.
Case in point - Chicago.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … d-low.html
They have some of strictest gun laws in the nation but yet their murder rate surges. Seems that stricter laws have very little effect of the better.
Dunblane was way back in 1996. Can you point to any other country which has as many mass shootings as the US?
I have no problem with people having a gun for self-defence, if that's such a strong part of your culture. But you don't need a semi-automatic weapon for self-defence. Ban those.
And I believe Scotland enacted stronger gun control laws after that shooting.
Why don't we need a semi-automatic weapon for self-defense? Bad guys have them, why shouldn't we be allowed to have them?
Banning them won't get rid of them. I could buy one illegally and anonymously, over the internet, today. We can't keep them out of the country.
As to comparing countries, it's useless.
Question, I own many semi-auto's, from shotguns to handguns. If I am restricted from owning them what happens if I run across a bad guy that has them? Why restrict my rights when the bad guy isn't concerned about what laws he violates?
I don't think you would truly solve the problems with a ban on guns but you may reduce it and if it saves one child's life then I think it would be worth it. I also think that a ban wouldn't solve anything just like that but would take many years possibly generations. It's something we all need to work at and take responsibility for and if I meet my end at the hands of a bad guy then as far as I'm concerned it's something worth dying for in order to protect my 4 year old boy from this kind of tragedy. Of course criminals and organised gangs will ignore gun laws but I really do think that you could reduce this kind of mass killing by teenagers who don't have a grip on reality.
I also think there are good situations to allow guns, such as your profession dictates it (farming, ranching etc) and also for leisure pursuits such as hunting etc. Tighter control should be applied there, but just having a gun in the suburban home for the sole purpose of protection which means using it on another human being has got to be wrong and you have to fix the cause of that situation.
Timely discussion, at least in the US. Gun sales have skyrocketed since the last election. I have always agreed with the right of folks to have them, and know that although trite, the saying "If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns" is also true. Those who want them for nefarious reasons will always get them. Honest citizens having guns deters crimes. I have to admit the threat of restricted access is making me consider purchasing while I still can.
Good or bad they are here to stay. I gave up my guns when I had small children and have not felt the need to get one again. I don't live in a high crime area and I try to mind my own business so as to not give anyone a reason to make me use one. I don't fault anyone who feels the need to have one or use one to protect themselves. There is one argument that makes total sense for the ownership of guns and that is that if you take the guns from the law abiding citizen, then the criminals will be the ones left having them. They never let registration get in the way of acquiring one.
I don't think there is anything wrong with a responsible (trained) person owning a gun. If guns are taken away, criminals will still have them. I want to know that I can protect my family if needed.
I can easliy see an upcoming ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines and I have no problem with that. Nobody needs an assault weapon. Machine guns were completely legal in this country at one time and how many crimes in this country were committed by a common criminal or lunatic with a machine gun since? One can easliy hunt and protect their home with a deer rifle, revolver or shotgun - providing that the gun owner has training with them and that they are equipted with trigger locks. I personal prefer a samari sword for home protection - no intruder is stupid enough to try to grab a 3' razorblade from me and if I stick the intruder, there's not much fuss compared to using a firearm.
Do you know how many murders are committed with *any* type of rifle, let alone 'assault' rifles?
How many were committed with automatic machine guns(which are still legal, btw).
Where in the US is it legal for someone to own a machine gun without special permit?
All machine guns are regulated by the NFA. All it takes is a $200 payment to the treasury, they are classified the same as short-barreled rifles, suppressors, etc. I said they were legal, and they are.
People talk about automatic weapons being a big problem, which is why I asked.
i'm Canadian and i honestly don't see the need to own a gun other then for hunting. i own a couple but i don't keep them handy in case of a home invasion , i have a bat for that. the thought of shooting a gun in my house to protect my family is scary just because of how it would affect my kids if they saw the dead body. people can argue all they want about whether guns are needed or not but in the end, it's too late to change the way people think. the U.S. government can never take away the guns from the people so trying to would result in nothing more then making otherwise honest people into criminals.
Guns have frankly nothing to do with crime. There are 75 million guns in USA, yet the crime rate is not because of them . In case a mentally disturbed man wants to kill , he will kill anyhow guns or no guns. What is more important to give moral and ethical education to the young. They are adrift in American society at present. One reason is the break down of family with a high divorce rate. You got to treat the symptoms. Gun laws etc cant help out.
One of my favorite line of rifles are the Henry Golden Boy and Special Edition lever action repeaters. Beautifully constructed from quality materials all hand made in the US.
Lincoln's Henry No. 6 is in the Smithsonian...
I wish people would stop taking extreme positions, and instead look for compromise. After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, the Australian government banned semi-automatic weapons. Australians still own guns, and people still get shot - BUT we haven't had another massacre since then.
Semi-automatic weapons didn't exist when the Constitution was written, so why can't we agree that they're not appropriate for civilian use, get rid of them and move on?
Because, the constitution allows citizens to keep and bear arms. 'Bear arms' refers to weapons which one can carry. They wanted citizens to have access to the same kinds of arms as the government, to serve as a final balance of power.
Besides, they are extremely useful for civilians in many different situations.
"Bear arms" must refer to the weapons which were in existence at the time those words were written, because the writers wouldn't have been able to imagine anything else. It's all in how you choose to interpret the words.
No, it mustn't. That wasn't the intention of the Constitution, or they would have said 'Bear muskets'. If you read supporting texts by the founders at the time period, it is very clear that they wanted(for many reasons), the citizens to have access to the same type of arms as the military.
Homicide attempt, burglary, robbery, riot, revolution, collapse of government(if you think those two are impossible, you don't appreciate the severity of the financial crises the entire world is facing. 2008 was only the beginning, because we haven't learned our lessons), hunting, sport, hobby. I'm sure there are more.
I respect your position of this, Marisa. However, you don't live here. Respectfully, you obviously don't understand how America won it's freedom with guns, maintained it with guns, and will keep it with guns. If we give in on this, the government is like a never-satisfied child, they'll just want more and more and more.
Ah, the "thin end of the wedge" argument. If we give even an inch, then they'll take a mile. If you take that attitude, then there should be no laws at all, because any law is a restriction of freedom.
Not everything is a right guaranteed in the constitution. Your argument does not work.
I agree we need laws in place to protect our citizens. I'm not going to argue that point, Marisa. However, the criminals don't care about the laws. They don't obey the ones we have. Do you really think they'll obey a ban of any kind? Not likely.
I've posted this before but here's what I had to go through to get my permit to carry a weapon legally in my state, Tennessee.
We're not allowed to just buy a handgun then carry it. We have to go through a background check before buying a gun. It's computerized and doesn't take long but it's a requirement.
To get our permit to legally carry, we're required to take a class on the laws and safe use of a handgun. We're also required to qualify on a shooting range. If we pass, we're given a certificate.
We then go to the Department of Safety (DOS), fill out an application, give them the certificate, and pay $115. The DOS then runs a background check on each applicant with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI). If that person passes, they're issued a permit to carry legally. The investigative process on me took 107 days and I've had my permit for over 5 years.
Do I think all this is intrusive on my 2nd Amendment rights? Yes, but it's a requirement of my state so I did what it took to legally carry. The cost of all this, gun and all, was approximately $1,150. That's not money I take spending lightly.
I feel it's my responsibility to protect my family, Marisa. I take that responsibility very seriously. Carrying a weapon legally and safely is just as big a responsibility. If you were to talk to most of the 378,000 permit holders in my state, you'd find they feel the same. There's always going to be a few that don't take it as seriously but we try to weed them out and get them stripped of their right to carry.
We're not gunslingers, Marisa. Those days are long since gone. We're just people trying to make sure our families and ourselves are safe in a culture where violent criminals are not going away any time soon.
i think it's time the U.S. looks at what is happening , looks at the rest of the civilized world and compares what they are doing compared to everyone else. do i think people should have guns, sure. do i think that the U.S. guns laws are working, not a chance.
I would go even farther. I think it is imperative that people of strong moral character and a desire for freedom and justice own a military quality fire arm and ammunition.
"Imperative" meaning that you would force such people to own a military quality firearm even if they didn't want one?
"Strong moral character" must not preclude any ethnicity, political persuasion, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, and so on, OK?
"a desire for freedom" can presumably include freedom to walk abroad among an unarmed populace?
Guns by themselves are not bad at all. As a matter of truth guns do not do nothing wrong, people have in the tc to be trained better with the use of their guns and how to protect their families with guns in their homes. Bad guys will always find ways to get guns, good people will do it the right way.
Guns are neither good nor bad. They are a tool.
Is a kitchen knife bad? Does it become bad if someone uses it to kill someone else?
The right to life means the right to self-defense. All other arguments aside, every person has the right to defend themselves, and arguably any other person. Again, all other arguments aside, there is no way that we can keep guns out of the hands of people who want to do bad things with them... the saying 'if you ban guns, only criminals will have them' is absolutely true.
Also, there is no correlation between increased private gun ownership and increased homicides. We have increased gun rights and gun ownership steadily over the last two decades, and yet all crime rates have been going down, not up.
The Brady Campaign promised that if the Assault Weapon Ban was allowed to sunset, that the streets would run red with blood. It didn't happen.
Anti-gun arguments are almost always either 1) Emotional arguments, or 2) Logically fallacious.
Long topic or discussion. but I am anti-gun if it kills instantly and that is what most do.
Shoot to injure OK but most people don't. Pellet guns may be more useful or low level stun guns
A gun's main objective is to seriously injure or kill. And you can kill many within seconds versus having a knife, stun gun or pellet gun. Do you all gun advocates really need to have 4 or 5 guns because you think your will be invaded? Are you really going to shoot to injure or just kill him?
Yes, I have been in some pretty bad situations and if I had a gun not sure what I'd do to the convicted man who raped my sister in a store. They got him from DNA years later. Many people do stupid things with guns when put in stressful situations no matter how much training you have, zero criminal history, or what good deeds you did in the recent past - KC pro football linebacker. You never know what you are capable of?
any why are people hunting anyway? We are not in caveman or cowboys and indians days. You buy food at grocery stores so it is free of wildlife disease and so on?
FYI, guns rarely kill instantly. In fact, they usually don't kill. Handgun survival rates are between 80-90%.
Gee thanks for that useless piece of information.
I am perfectly ok with guns being owned by people competent to have them. I long ago gave up on my perfect gun-less world. But we regulate car driving and beauticians more than americans with guns. We don't keep people who shouldn't have them from having them. All you need is a fee for a fireowner's ID card. If gun owners needed to take a test, pass some sort of safety training, annually take additional training - which hair dressers and manicurists have to do - I might be ok with the populace owning guns. But that's not the guy who walked into the grade school and shot 6 year olds.
Someone mentioned shooting and criminals in Chicago. I am from Chicago. I work with the police. Most of those guns were stolen from law abiding citizens who had no business having them in the first place. I worked with a cop whose gun was stolen from his home while he was on vacation and I saw the morale struggle he went through each time we had a shooting until his gun was recovered. Most of those "legal" guns end up being used by criminals or the mentally ill, like last week's shooter, who got them through some sort of "legal" means. If gun owners are competent to use handguns, why are the gun lobbyiests so afraid to be tested on them the same way my 80 year old mother needs to take a road test for her driver's license. You want gun ownership to be a prideful right. Police yourselves and keep the guns away from the crazies.
And as for bows and arrows. The kill a lot fewer people and are a lot easier to take away than guns.
I don't think anyone argues guns themselves are good or bad. Police responding to an armed offender and people hunting for food need them. Unsupervised young children, violent criminals, homicidal people etc shouldn't have them.
The trick is deciding where to draw the line between these extremes.
Just so everybody knows, I am pro-gun if the gun is under the control of a responsible person. I have a Taurus Judge in my bed-side table in the event that somebody tries to rob me. I should have made the question something like "Should everybody be allowed to own guns?" I apologize for the confusion.
A Taurus Judge?
Any gun is better than no gun, but the Judge is not good as a shotgun... you're better off loading it with .45 than .410(no matter what load you use). It's actually scary how ineffective that gun can be...
I'm not trying to make you feel bad or anything... I just worry about ineffective tools
Oh it definitely isn't the most accurate or effective gun out there, that's for sure. I just figured somebody would leave immediately if I pointed it at them, there's just something intimidating about a shotgun pistol pointed at one's head that would hopefully convince them that trying to rob the holder of that piece of artillery would, in fact, be a bad idea.
I love my Judge and also have a .12 next to my bed. No not everyone should possess guns, unfortunately, we can't keep them out of the hands of the ones who are irresponsible.
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796
28 years later, he wrote this to John Cartwright in 1824. "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
As a handgun carry permit holder in my state of Tennessee, I carry everywhere except at work. I even carry at church and the pastor knows I have it. He's okay with it. I do so for my own personal reasons but I sincerely hope I never have to draw it. In five years of carrying, I've only had to do so once.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
248 years later, it sounds like Mr. Jefferson could be speaking of the problems we have today. When responsible, law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry legally, the crime rate goes down. Criminals want an easy target, not one that will shoot back.
What do I think about owning a gun and gun control?
Yes, I am pro-gun rights and the only kind of gun control I like is when I'm the one in control of the gun.
We've always owned guns - for hunting, skeet/trap shooting, target shooting, self-defense, and for killing varmints like venomous snakes.
My guess would be the not-so-intelligent one is standing behind the person who's legally holding the gun, having to protect them both.
My answer would be "nothing" because the stupid one is the one without the gun to protect themselves. JMHO, of course.
I'd still feel better if an IQ test was mandatory before the purchase of a gun. Oh and some psychometrics wouldn't go amiss either. By the way, your argument stinks. If it's clever to have a gun to protect yourself, why not be super intelligent and get yourself a rocket-launcher?
I would like to see the same IQ test and psychometrics requirements before a person is allowed to vote but that's not going to happen either. If it did, we might not be facing what we're facing.
As for an answer to your question, it's not "clever" to have a gun to protect yourself, Kate. Unfortunately, it is sometimes necessary. Perhaps you would do well to ask some people why they carry before judging them. Besides, if the person is far enough away I would need a rocket launcher to get them, they're not a threat, thus it would not be necessary for me to shoot them.
Why not test for both before procreation, it might save a lot of time. (Just in case you don't realise, I'm being ironic.) I live in a country where nearly everyone has a gun. The only time people shoot each other is on a Sunday, when they've had too many glasses of vin with their lunch and then gone out hunting, when they catch their wife in bed with another man, and occasionally, when they need sectioning. They do not think of a gun as something they should use to protect themselves. There is just as much crime, the police carry guns (and are very scary to boot,) and most families own a gun. It's just it rarely occurs to them to use guns on each other. What makes America so special?
Yes, I realized you were being ironic and I was being wishful. If voters had to be tested for at least some level of intelligence before voting, a large portion of our citizenry would have been turned away and we wouldn't have been facing four more years of Obama and the death of my country. Just my opinion.
Each person's country is special to them in their own way. Well, at least it's that way for some Americans. Others just want what they can get from others but that's for another forum.
Our country's independence was won by force with guns. New territories were opened, sometimes having to use guns to do so. The western half of this country was wild with no law at all in most places so the use of a gun was essential to our growth and survival, not just as a country but all the way down to the individual. Does this make America special? No, not any more than your own country would be to you. We just do things differently.
Our court system is so messed up we have criminals serving a quarter of their sentence. They get out and a lot of them return to what they were doing before, with no regard for the law at all. I'm glad I live in a country where I don't have to wait for the police to show up if my family's or my life is in danger. I have the Constitutional right to protect my family and myself. I sincerely hope that's without the use of my gun but, if need be, I'll do what's necessary. If that means by using deadly force, so be it. That doesn't make us special. It does, IMHO, make us fortunate.
I don't see how being terrified that some scum bag is going to kill you makes you fortunate. I'm lucky that I live somewhere where gun crime is a rarity and it wouldn't occur to anyone to carry a gun for protection, for dinner yes, but not because they were frightened of attack. But then I live in a republic.
There is a difference between terrified and prepared. Much like the shooting in the mall yesterday, I doubt anyone was terrified to go to the mall but on that day they were not prepared.
I'm not terrified at all, Kate. Not in the least. I have the right to protect myself and, in a culture where we have people too lazy to work for what they get and instead want what others have, I'm glad I have that right because those same people don't have a problem killing someone to get it.
I'm not terrified, Kate. I'm prepared.
Because a rocket launcher isn't needed to put one lone gunman down. My magazine holds 15 and one in the pipe, and I have 3 magazines on standby in case I would need more.
So, the U.S. constitutional law should never be changed? Our forefathers knew everything back then. Let's keep it the way it is for 1000 years. C'mon people.
There's "lots of stupids" out there with a gun doing these stupid things.
You got perfectly sane people with no history killing themselves and others. So, this argument has no weight.
The NRA or police handgun stats don't make victims families feel any better.
Are they permanently injured, handicapped too?
Not everybody is 50-cent by dodging 12 bullets from gangs and become a billionaire.
Why not just enforce laws we already have instead of changing our constitution? Those of you who don't want firearms don't have to have them, those of you who depend on the police to show up and protect you from the bad man with a gun can continue to do so. I will continue to defend myself instead of waiting for the disinterested third party to save me.
With an average nationwide police response time of 11 minutes, I'll go with what Repairguy wrote.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. In the meantime, I'll use my firearm to cover the retreat of my family and myself. You anti-gunners and libs can hangout with the gunman. I'll be outside, if possible, to tell the police what I saw. Good luck. You'll need it.
I’m thankful for the right to bear arms. That liberty was essential in winning our independence from England. It is specifically important in protecting goods during transport. If we were to ever revolt against our snowballing government, we would need them...
In the news the weekend that Javon Beltcher murdered his girlfriend, there was a postal carrier, in Florida, who poisoned her husband. In the news the same day, a man, in Montana(?) stabbed his fathers girlfriend to death, shot his dad to death with a bow and arrow,then stabbed himself to death. If people are going to kill people they don't need guns. But guns surely deter people. Twice in my life the cocking of a gun sent someone peacefully away. There was one time in Chicago,Ill. and one time in Oakland, CA.
Only bad if placed in the wrong hands, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons, making the wrong choices.
In the UK we are not allowed to carry guns by right. If we get a license then we can carry guns.
It is true that criminals can still get and use guns, but they generally only use them against each other, oh and for robbery. Generally they are only used as a threat, rarely do you hear of them being used against people.
I take it you have no armed robbery in the US because you are armed!
I've been burgled a couple of times, been robbed on the street once but on no occasion was a firearm used, you'll no doubt say that if I'd had one I could have scared them off, but on the other hand, they might have had one too and then rather than scaring them off, I could be dead.
No, when all is said and done, I'd rather have my freedom than a gun.
And how will you ensure your freedom?
Answer. You won't! You will be a victim and hope the U.S. Marines come to your rescue.
Do what? I hope your not referring to WW2 young man. I take it that your charming self owns a gun?
What the hell are you talking about? WW2????
Well that's all right then, my mistake. It's just you talking about ensuring freedom and needing the U.S. Marines to an Englishman, I jumped to the wrong conclusion. I do apologise.
Ok, the Marines (in force) didn't help the British during WW2, they were mostly in the Pacific theater of operations. My response was to John who was talking about keeping his freedoms and I was asking how if the government wanted to take them was he going to ensure them.
We have a deal with the police in the UK, if they don't arm then neither will we.
Unfortunately not everybody in England holds their end of that bargain up.
It's really unusual for non criminals to get shot. It does happen but its rare. Most gun crime stays within the criminal population. When two female police officers were killed, there was a public outcry, it was considered to be such a dreadful act. A police officer being shot is never part of the job.
Indeed not, but still the police don't want to be armed.
The last two police women that were killed in the UK thought they were attending a domestic disturbance and even if they had been armed, the hand grenade would still have got them
How do you know what would have happened had they been armed?
Because the criminal involved set them up in order to kill them, they didn't stand a chance.
We may have loose gun laws by your standards but I don't think Ive ever heard of a grenade killing in the U.S.
It probably wouldn't make the news for all the shooting deaths.
We rank 28th worldwide in homicide by guns. Get control of your fragmentation grenades for gods sake!
You actually rank first by rate of ownership. You have 2.97 deaths by shooting per 100,000.
For balance the UK ranks 88 by rate of ownership and we have 0.007 deaths by shooting per 100,000!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog … world-list
Yup, that's exactly the source I used, look at the USA, number one!
But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people
That's not nearly as impressive when you see that of the top 29 countries, the U.S. is the only developed nation. The other 28 are either war zones or developing countries.. In fact the U.S. is higher on the list than the West Bank & Gaza!
You think maybe the population of the U.S. has something to do with that?
I think it's significant that the U.S. has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, and has a higher rate of gun homicide per 100,000 people than any other developed country in the world.
Research who it is doing the killing, attack that group of people with whatever means our society deems proper. I can guarantee it is not people legally buying firearms doing the majority of it, it is criminals who no matter what is available will still kill.
We don't have the highest rate of ownership, we have the most guns per capita. We're about the same a Switzerland for rate of ownership, yet switzerland has an extremely low gun-related homicide rate.
You have to look at demographics and geographic ffactors to compare homicide rates. UK =/= US for comparison, you have to control for variables.
Well that's because you don't have Dale Cregan running amok. He was busy killing his own kind until this incident. He was feared by the criminal fraternity but now he's just criminally insane. They'll lock him up and throw away the key, something that they can do because no one shot him when he was arrested.
The unseen killer would still have lobbed a grenade and killed them
I would suspect (could be wrong) that training for Police officers in your country is not quite as intense as ours. Maybe they were just completely unprepared for an attack like that. In the U.S. a domestic disturbance isn't treated as just another routine call, no call is routine.
Yes, that's what frightens me about the Americans, shoot first, ask questions later.
Sure, British cops have only had to deal with terrorists for the past 100 years, not as many common criminals
Yes, the entire world does it wrong, only the US know the right way...
Exactly, how many terrorist strikes has the U.S. endured by comparison?
Yep. And after 150 years of putting up with them I would think the British would do as well at stopping them as we do. Guess not.
There is only one answer to that - Twin Towers.
That is one of very few, haven't had one since. The U.K. just doesn't come close to our expertise.
More like 150. It was in the mid to late 1800s when Irish terrorists (aided by an American) shot and killed a policeman whilst escaping from custody in Manchester.
What? They go prepared for what may happen, never mind sheeple will never understand.
I don't think anyone would be prepared for a grenade attack. Except the army. Your not suggesting that cities are war zones? Now that's fear. It's fear that fuels this whole debate. Scared guy with a gun - scares the hell out of me.
And on that note, I'm calling it a night, it's all getting a bit heated. I hope those of you who carry guns stay safe and those of you who don't, don't meet any trigger happy , gun carrying, paranoid citizens.
That's true, it seems to have been a premeditated murder and your right there was a grenade as well and they wouldn't have stood a chance, even if they had been armed.
Drat, I forgot, when I was robbed in the street I should have called for the US marines!
Do you think if I'd asked nicely the robbers would have waited the few weeks it would take for the Marines to come to my rescue?
Don't want to answer I see or you don't understand the question. I'll try again, if your government wanted to enslave you how would you stop them? I answered for you.
Well the US Marines would hardly step in, unless to support the government.
How would the government actually want to enslave us any more than we are already? Slaves actually cost money to keep.
You might be fooling yourself about who our military would support in that case. Didn't attempt an answer I see.
John, in the USA, we have people shooting each over cigarettes, back alley crap games, or when they simply walk to their car after shopping. If someone comes in my home uninvited while I or my wife am at home, they'll be leaving one of two ways - vertical, at a dead run or horizontal, with a sheet over their face. Either way, they're leaving.
I have a permit to carry a gun. I also have rules as to how I can use deadly force.
If I walk in my front door and a burglar runs out the back, I can't shoot him. I have to let him go and call the police with a description.
If that person instead comes at me, I have every right to shoot him.
If that person attempts to run into another part of the house, again, I have every right to shoot them as I have no idea if he may have a weapon left in that other room.
If a person attempts to get in my car with me such as a carjacking, I have every right to shoot that person.
Here in Tennessee, we're not allowed to just buy a handgun then carry it. We're required to take a class on the laws and safe use of a gun. If we pass, we're given a certificate. We go to the Department of Safety, fill out an application, give them the certificate, and pay $115. The DOS then runs a background check on each applicant with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. If that person passes, they're issued a permit to carry legally. The investigative process on me took 107 days.
As for your last statement, respectfully, we gained our freedom with the use of a gun. We hope it never happens but we'll keep it with the use of a gun. That means never letting our government take them away.
Then that's pretty much the same as the UK then with restrictions on what type of guns we can use, and where we can use them.
It must be a difference in national psyche then.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. If a man wants to kill someone, not being in possession of a firearm wont stop him. They can use a baseball bat, a kitchen knife, almost anything could be a weapon.
I don't think we should ban guns because all people no matter what country they live in should have the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.
With that said - I'll never own a gun "for protection" I just don't understand people who say they have a gun just in case they get robbed. Are you seriously willing to KILL someone that is trying to steal from you? I couldn't do it.
Now, let's say that same schmuck tries to rape or kill my child well then, hell ya, I'd shoot that SOB.
The problem comes from people who think they can take the law into their own hands and just start killing people willy nilly over the dumbest things.. "He was on my property!" "He stole my purse!" "He looked at me funny!"
The ballot, not the bullet is the way to prevent tyrannical government.
The ballot may not be an option for us in the US, John. A tyrannical government has been in place for four years and this country is about to go over the "fiscal cliff" with our crazy-like-fox president behind it, pushing. Obama wants what's coming. He just got 4 more years and the sad truth is things are going to get far worse before they get better.
Elections are pomp and circumstance...they are already decided results. The whole process is just to make the common folks believe that they have a "choice".
The problem with this is, aside from the problems inherent in democracy that I won't get into, that the ballot is not always in full control of the individual, whereas, if it's legal to own a gun, gun ownership is solely the responsibility of the individual. Tyrannical governments don't often declare themselves so - all tyrannies have convinced the people that their policies are necessary for the public good. It is common place to trick the population into believing this until it is too late to change anything by vote. In the end it is the vote counter that decides policy. For example, Hitler had already asserted himself as dictator before the Germans even started to wake up, after being fooled by his 'social reforms'. It's not as if they were the only ones either, there were numerous appraisals of Hitler's policies by many intellectuals in the west. The whole world was fooled. Something useful to remember today.
The ballot is useful to establish specific things, but is next to useless in preventing tyrannical governments. You need more than guns - guns as part of a mass movement of peaceful non-compliance is the way to deal with tyrannies. After all, they have no domain over us, so let's not acquiesce. But when the inevitable thing happens we need to have some way of protecting ourselves.
Guns make it easier to kill more people in less time. I am sure I left some out but of the few that caught my eye from a few recent news examples:
1.) Roommate killed over a pork chop in Florida (man owned rifle and shot him twice in the head)
2.) Portland, Oregon mall shooting (stolen automatic gun)
and so on
I am sure there are situations where it stops violent criminals but you never hear about it as much.
How about stun guns or an invisible stun beam when you invade a home or business.
"I am sure there are situations where it stops violent criminals but you never hear about it as much."
And you never will, SMP, as it doesn't conform to the anti-gun agenda of the left-leaning, liberal media or their buddies on the liberal side of our government. They'll never show guns in a favorable light.
Breaking news today Dec 14 2012: Connecticut School District Locked down
put t's after the "h" in the link above
guns could get into the hands of psychotic people, happening right now - Shooting at school in Connecticut, one student already dead
http://news.yahoo.com/connecticut-towns … 53370.html
Gun-free zones don't keep out guns... I hate hearing these stories, psychos love to go places where they know nobody can fight back.
ten children and ten adults are dead, still counting. I am saddened by this, it makes me really angry.
yup, it doesn't really matter if they have access to guns or not.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/world … .html?_r=0
It's not the weapon - it's the people using the weapon - guns should be used to stop violence (i.e. police protecting themselves) nothing more nothing less. This is a careless world and it is evident with this last school shooting. No thought about life - just making a point, whatever that it.
Heres a news flash , This man was buzzed into the school carrying at least two semi auto rifles ............Maybe we need to ban school security ! Or locked doors where apparently no one watches who they buzz in the freakin door ! Anti -gun morons always jump to conclusions , Maybe you should stop voting for people who support dumping idiots out of mental hospitals , how about banning congress that cuts budgets to the hospitals !
Two quick questions.
When did the Civil War in Australia end?
How many guns were required to remove the tyrannical English Government for Australia to succeed by governing their own?
Q2.....zero?....and sometime after WWII?
Having a gun loaded to me is asking for trouble. All I can picture are a couple of kids finding it in a drawer or a mom's purse and accidently shooting themself or their friend. If you have a gun, keep it out of reach and "Locked Up". Another picture is a teenage child sneaking in thru a window late at night and the parent accidently shooting their child, thinking it was a burglar. Lastly I vision "most" pulling the gun on an intruder, freezing, and getting shot or killed by their own weapon. Personally, I see no need for guns in a home, except for hunting purposes. We have law enforcement to protect us! Call 911! Lock up your hunting equipment, unloaded, where it can't be accidently used to hurt or kill a loved one! And to even consider arming teachers or carrying concealed weapons in church or schools, is just asking for trouble!
You can picture that all you want, but people defend themselves with guns millions of times a year. Kleck and Gertz found so, one of the leading criminologists in the country who is anti gun acknowledged it as the best study he's ever seem, and the department of justice did a study that agreed.
If someone is in your house, the police won't get there for 5-10 minutes.
When seconds count the police are minutes away.
And many become victims of their own guns! One child or adult killed by an accident in the home is one too many!
We were the victims of a home invasion - police department responded after 45 minutes - glad we had a gun and home defense training....
I never pictured it as a home invasion, more a burglary! No police were called at the time, I just asked the burglars to leave, they agreed, apologised for disturbing my sleep and left.
No fire arms were used or even available.
All I can say is that you were very, very lucky - people who know you are home and come into your house to commit a robbery anyway, are usually not coming in to make friends. Home invasions do not usually end well. If they are just in need of something and don't want to use violence, I would think that they would break in when there is no one home.
No, not very very lucky, just averagely lucky!
Most people sleep pretty deeply and a quiet burglar won't wake them. Mine only woke me because they left their car outside my house with the engine running.
The usual scheme is to lay pots and pans on the stairs to alert them to anybody sneaking up (or down) on them.
Burglary is a cowardly crime, the hard men and the violent men will get much richer pickings from banks and shops, not working class homes.
You don't ever see a responsible person thwarting a crime with a firearm because you don't want to. You want to write the narrative that guns are bad and they kill people, responsible gun owners have used those weapons many times to stop crime. I have done it myself.
Movingout, honestly, do you own any guns? Have you ever had any firearms training?
Before you say - Ban all guns. Please Note: A terrorist doesn't need a gun to kill.
Timothy McVeigh used Fertilizer
On 9-11 they used box cutters and aircraft
No sir ! not all guns ,But it does have an emotionaly twisted , angry , bitter repulsive human being on it . When it kills outside of the law that is !......:-}
I can understand that in the US the culture is very different from ours. I can, actually, get my head around the fact that those who live in rural America use guns for all kinds of purposes and not just protection. I suppose in many respects it's part of your social fabric- I get that. But what puzzles me, and this is not a criticism but me trying to understand, is when it comes to handguns and all the deaths and tragedies that have happened over recent times in America, is why you find it so difficult to relinquish the right to bear arms if there is a possibility (given all the comparative studies on the topic) that it may eventually save lives- particularly those of children.
Why don't we all stop driving cars? Seriously, 30-40,000 people die every year because of them. We should just stop, for the children. Right?
We can't keep guns out of America. There is no way we can, not even close. If we banned guns, then it would turn the whole US into a gun-free zone, and people would still be able to get access to guns.
Anyone can go online, and anonymously buy a gun through the black market. It's that easy. So what happens when good citizens are unarmed, but criminals still have guns? What happens when the millions of instances every years that people defend themselves or others, no longer happen?
It would make the problem worse.
The best comparative study is to look at the US over time. As more states have changed to Right-To-Carry states, and more citizens have purchased and carry guns, has the homicide rate skyrocketed? Surely it has, if more guns = more deaths.
Why do you think these massacres always happen in gun free zones? Criminals don't care about a sign that says 'no guns allowed'.
Why don't we all stop driving cars? Seriously, 30-40,000 people die every year because of them. We should just stop, for the children. Right?
Why would we? Throughout the time that cars have been available for us to drive (I speak of my own country here) we have consistently tried to make driving safer for the driver, passenger and pedestrian. We've introduced age limits, drug and alcohol testing, sight tests, air bags, safer cars in general. In this country we also have, not just driving lessons and tests, but theory tests. Extortionate amounts of insurance for drivers under the age of 25 (the riskiest group when it comes to moralities) Why not ensure there is far more scrutiny when it comes to gun laws? Also, in your unsubstantiated claim of 30 to 40 K, you don't mention how many are drivers and how many are pedestrians, and if you really think about it, that is completely relevant- so, source please?
No, you can't- we can't here either, but you can make them less available to those that murder little children, as well as adults- you just have to try.
Anyone can go online, and anonymously buy a gun through the black market. It's that easy. So what happens when good citizens are unarmed, but criminals still have guns? What happens when the millions of instances every years that people defend themselves or ot
I'm pretty sure they can't in this country. In this country guns are available through the underworld- no criminal in this country would trust the internet. The UK has a habit of hacking, have you not heard about this? Well, the good citizens in this country ARE unarmed and criminals still have guns, but on the whole, other than a few exceptions- they shoot each other and not good citizens. We don't have millions of instances of that nature, even when we make adjustments for the size of our nation in comparison to yours. Your country, the one that makes it pretty easy for many to obtain guns, has the millions of instances, not ours.
The best comparative study is to look at the US over time. As more states have changed to Right-To-Carry states, and more citizens have purchased and carry guns, has the homicide rate skyrocketed? Surely it has, if more guns = more deaths.
Don't even attempt to dictate to me which is the best comparative study. Looking at the US overtime is more than useless. Your mega million pro gun lobby, which is mainly dictated by the profits of arms manufacturers has ensured that the issue is has become feared by politicians and revered by the gullible.
Why do you think these massacres always happen in gun free zones? Criminals don't care about a sign that says 'no guns allowed'.
They don't always happen in gun free zones- they have however, happened where there is tighter control of gun laws- but, by the same token, moralities may have been much higher had those gun laws not have been in place- prove otherwise!
And, in the interests of those kids who may be harmed in the future- and assuming that you do want to see an end to the tragedies that have happened in the US over recent times- why are you not willing to give this a try? Does your right to bear arms trump the rights of all those innocents in the future?
Hollie, you're changing the parameters of the argument. You asked why we don't give up guns. I asked why we don't give up cars. Those are equal questions with the same parameters of giving up things that kill children.
You then come back and talk about restrictions and education... well that's a different topic. Drivers education is analogous to gun education, so don't try to equate it to banning guns.
WISQARS has the data for you, you can look up all traffic-related deaths, and sort it by age.
You're also ignoring both historic trend, that more people carrying guns has not caused an increase in crime, and ignoring the fact that millions of people defend themselves with guns, so they would be out of luck without them.
Limitation of powers, if there was such a thing...
Hollie, from WISQARS
In 2010, 209 children up to age 12 were killed by firearms, both intentionally and accidents.
In 2010, 292 children died in cars that were in accidents. Another 235 were killed as pedestrians. 975 total with all automobile related causes.
Jaxson, link? No offence but it's 1.16 am here, I'm not about to go searching. I'm going to bed- knackered but back tomorrow and will have a good look at your data.
Fun facts. Before Texas was a Right to Carry state, it averaged 50% more homicides than the national average. After changing, it has averaged 6% more homicides than the national average.
Florida went from 50% above the national average to 4%.
Georgia: 67% to 23%
West Virginia: 30% under to 35% under.
Oregon: 45% under to 54% under.
So you have to keep those "right to carry" guns available at all times which means easier access to accidents. Homicides may have decreased but accidental gun deaths has to have risen.
Looking at more factors; were the police patrols the same in the state or large cities or were they increased?
Doesn't a better economy mean less homicides anyway aside from guns.
There are socio-economical factors that cannot be disregarded.
I know Texans love them some big trucks and obviously guns. I like Texas. It is just an observation.
I agree ocbill... there are factors that have to be adjusted for...
but, there are too many factors, and some factors that can't be effectively quantified, so anything like that just goes under the 'mostly useless statistics' category
I'd have to check, but I'm fairly certain accident rates have gone down as well.(nationwide as well)
You can't just read and believe the facts, can you? When more law-abiding citizens carry, crime rates go down. What more do you need, OC?
Personally, I think teachers and administrators who have handgun carry permits should be allowed to carry in school. Obviously, gun-free zones are not the answer.
I got this in my email and didn't check it out @ snopes for rumor control. But I do believe that if bad things were done in the past - such as crop-dusting LSD in France in 1950's, (google it) then I don't see why not not on this one:
The primary-school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, approximately 45 miles from the Colt Arms Factory, is just another one in the long line of government psyops designed to persuade the public to allow the government to take away their guns, and their means to defend themselves against the government and the banksters that the politicians really serve.
The small children murders are designed to create hysterical emotions in women to get them to demand that guns are banned. If that doesn’t work they will continue with their evil agenda with worse and worse atrocities on younger children, until they get their way and disarm the people, so that they cannot fight back against government tyranny.
Newtown is the U.S.A.’s Dunblane, which was orchestrated in Scotland in 1996 by the British establishment, to whip up hysteria in order to ban all handguns from the U.K. It was a follow-up to the Hungerford Massacre in England in 1987, which was carried out by mind-controlled Michael Ryan, who then shot himself so he could not be questioned, and it was used to ban semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.
It’s always the same people behind it – the gun-grabbers who want the people to be defenceless against the gun-grabbers’ employers – the banksters who own all of the politicians. They get their politicians to pass legislation for them, in order to remove the people’s freedoms and means of defending themselves, and enslave them in a draconian police-state, under a mountain of debt, and then exterminate the useless-eaters.
The Dunblane massacre was supposedly carried out by Thomas Hamilton, who was a paedophile and procurer of children, for a high level paedophile ring involving senior members of the Tony Blair Labour-Party shadow-cabinet and others. The massacre served two purposes, it achieved their desired handgun-ban and killed the abused children, so they could not be witnesses against the elite-paedophiles. They then had the findings of the inquiry sealed for 100 years, which is proof of the above.
Like Newtown there were two shooters, Hamilton and a hit-man who shot Hamilton and made it look like Hamilton committed suicide after shooting 16 children, so that he couldn’t be questioned. Hamilton was found in the school gymnasium slumped against a wall and still gurgling, when an off-duty policeman PC Grant McCutcheon entered the gym and saw two semi-automatic pistols, one on either side of Hamilton’s body.
The autopsy revealed that Hamilton was killed with a .38 revolver. These people always slip-up with their crimes. There was no .38 revolver for him to have shot himself with. Thus, there was a second shooter who killed Hamilton.
Similarly, the first reports from Newtown were of two shooters, just like mind-controlled James Holmes in the Denver Batman Cinema massacre, the story then quickly changes to just one.
Columbine was similar, in that a team of shooters in black outfits were seen there and the two accused were on mind-altering prescription-drugs.
Wake up and see the pattern and their modus operandi and don’t fall for it. Never let them take your guns, except from your cold dead hands.
All of these are staged events to whip-up hysterical public support for banning the people from having guns. It works the same in every country – Hungerford in England, Dunblane in Scotland, Port Arthur in Australia and the list in America is endless, because of the Second Amendment and the people having a pro-gun culture. That makes it much more difficult to break the Americans’ love of guns and the Second Amendment, which was put in place to protect the people from the government.
Gun bans work well for tyrants. They worked well for Hitler, Stalin and Chairman Mao, to name just three.
If you want to stop these massacres, wake-up and get rid of the banksters, their puppet-politicians and all gun-grabbers; arm teachers and ban gun-free zones.
From one who can see the pattern and hopes to enable you to see it too.
I have talked a lot about this with people from Massachusetts over the last couple days in which not many people have guns, and no one carries because its near impossible to get the permits unless your a police officer. Although in Florida where I go to school and live, the concealment licenses are fairly cheap, and a LOT of people have guns, and carry.. In my opinion if you trained EVERYONE, and everyone was trained properly, this would be a deterrent from both crime, and incidents.. While this is just a theory.. As I have said before, when shootings occur in malls, restaurants or anywhere, this could essentially be stopped in the future..
As I have also said, it is sad that bad things do happen, BUT taking guns away is tough.. Keep in mind that even if you take all weapons away from civilians, you are taking guns that are registered away which is about 75% the weapons owned by civilians in the U.S. Then you are leaving the next 25% out there because you technically don't know where they are, and which most of which are owned by people who couldn't get a weapon legally, therefore got an illegal one.. So now you have a large portion of illegal weapons out there, no civilians with weapons, and putting ALL responsibility on police, which is also tough.
or another way of looking at it: flood the US with guns, remove any form of law enforcement ang government, close all the ports and leave to simmer for a year or two. Gun problem over.
Japan has a low gun homicide rate due to it being banned, their police methods and culture. Their organized crime has guns and has not made it fearful. America likes to play the fear card or what-ifs so a group's agenda continues even when flaws exist.
You've got kids and college youth killing groups of people for the heck of it, NOT for drugs, NOT for money which is what armed robberies or burglars do. America wants the mass public shootings to stop. Easy access is the problem. Because Lanza's mom felt safe by owning a gun due to a potential home invasion or whatever, the access as easy. The Denver movie shootings were just planned by a guy with no history. Why do normal citizens ever need an assault rifle?
The people who did the two shootings you mentioned were mentally ill. Taking guns away from law-abiding people is not going to stop these kinds of attacks. It will only make the law-abiding people more of a target to the violence.
I'll agree with the mentally ill.. Keep in mind that the same day of the shootings, a man in China that couldn't get a weapon, took a knife, and stabbed and killed 22 children with a knife.. If you take guns away, those who have mental illnesses who are the ones committing these acts will only find new methods..
The knife man wounded 22 people, not killed. So a man with access to guns killed 28 people, a man who couldn't get a gun killed 0 people. Thanks for making a great case for gun control.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/world … china.html
80% of the perpetrators in the last 61 cases of mass shootings obtained their weapons legally. So in the case of mass shootings,legal weapons and the people who are able to obtain them, is the issue.
You have to ask the question, how many of those perpetrators would have been deterred from committing their crime if they had to obtain their weapons illegally? Can you honestly answer none of them would have been? Even if just one was deterred, how many lives would have been saved? And wouldn't that be worth it?
It's not that easy Don. Whatever controls are put into place to try to avoid one of these incidents... what would the negative consequences be?
Mother Jones? Really? You want us to take a bar graph from that liberal rag seriously? Come on, Don. You're gonna have to step it up some.
Yes, only take seriously the outpourings of the NRA!
Unacceptable. If you want to refute it, okay, then present evidence to the contrary. Otherwise holding your hands over your ears and shouting "lalalalalalalal" isn't good enough.
80% of guns used in these incidents were obtained legally, including the ones involved in the latest shooting. That's a fact regardless of whether yo like it or not.
We don't need more gun laws. There's plenty already.
What we do need is stricter sentencing with more prisons for these animals so we don't have to let them out early.
What we do need is better care and institutions to put these psychos.
What we don't need are these bleeding-heart liberals saying we need to let these people out. They're mentally ill, not butterflies.
What we also don't need is the knee-jerk reaction of the left screaming for gun control laws, starting just hours after the death of 26 people.
It's becoming more and more evident that the left will "never want a serious crisis to go to waste." If in keeping that from happening they loose site of the deaths of 20 children, oh, well, they're just a means to an end to the left's way of thinking.
Just lock up anybody who shows any sign of mental instability, such as wanting to own a gun.
Fact: There are bad people in the US. People that have no qualms with killing strangers.
I would argue that not wanting to have a weapon to defend yourself and your family is a sign of mental instability. Preservation of self is considered a rational characteristic.
Worse than that, there are people who have no qualms about killing friends and family!
There is a lot of talk about people's freedom to walk around armed to the teeth, but what about my freedom to walk around without getting involved in a gun fight?
Yup, there are those kind of people. Everyone has the right to their own self-defense.
I'm sorry, but you don't have the freedom to guaranteed safety. That's never been a part of America, it's never been intended to be a part of America, and it's impossible to provide.
See, you're showing that mental instability. You know there is danger out there, but you don't want to do anything for self-preservation. The danger will always be there, but you focus instead on emotional arguments.
Why wouldn't you want to be able to defend yourself?
Jaxson, here in the UK we do not all run around armed, which, by your logic, means that gun crime should be much worse than it is in the USA, remember, the criminals can arm but we can't!
However, what do we find, we find that gun homicide in the USA is 2.97 per 100,000 people but in England and Wales only 0.07 per 100,000 people!
If that counts as an emotional argument then I'm emotional, but a lot more secure than I would be if we were like you,all armed up and ready to shoot.
If the U.S. were to disarm, how long do you think it would take to do so? A year? Five? A couple of generations?
Do we get the criminals to disarm first or the law-abiding citizens?
Just how would you suggest we do this, John? Keep in mind this is a country that won our independence not with rocks and sling shots but with guns. We've fed our families with guns through hunting as our ancestors have done for generations. And, yes, we protect our families with them because our police are a reactionary force at best.
Slowly and bit by bit.
Thirty years ago many people smoked and food stores would have ashtrays spread around the place for smokers to use. Now nobody would dream of smoking in a food shop. Same with drink driving, thirty years ago most people wouldn't bat an eye lid at jumping behind the wheel when they were in no fit state to, well Jump.
There was a little government intervention in these changes but mostly we've changed because our attitudes have changed. There are many fewer smokers now and those that do smoke are more aware of the antisocial aspects of their behaviour, likewise drivers.
Change your attitude to guns and who knows in half a century, you might be glad!
In a half century, this ole man will be dead and, at the rate we're going with Obama, we may very well be two or three different countries. Hopefully, my kids will live in the one that allows guns.
Or more hopefully they would live in a country that didn't want or need guns!
"Hope" doesn't exist here in the U.S. anymore. It's been replaced with the stupidity of the left with Obama in the lead.
As for Americans not wanting or needing guns, I wouldn't look for that to happen in our lifetimes or that of my children or grandchildren. That's as it should be as far as I'm concerned.
You really want to live in a country where everybody needs to be armed! Sheesh, why not just move to Afghanistan?
Your feeling about guns are your own and I respect them but I am curious as to why you hold those feelings? Have you been a victim or is it another reason.
I hold these feelings because I am civilised and do not agree that power should be held by the one with the biggest weapon.
Are you saying I am not civilized? What do you base that on?
Don't try to logically argue with an unarmed person - obviously has no brain to defend themself other than shrill shills!
No, you asked me for my reasons which I gave you. If you choose to take it the way you did then so be it.
I'm civilized and hold the complete opposite view. Well, I don't hold the view that power should be held by those with bigger weapons.
But it's true, when it all comes down to gun size, the man with the automatic rifle will invariably win over the man with the single shot pistol.
We don't all need to be armed, John, but we all have the right under our Constitution to be so so some of us choose to be. I also have a permit to carry legally in my state for my own personal reasons I won't get into here.
I don't expect someone from another country to understand but neither will I sit back and allow a bunch mamby-pamby anti-gunners who are so scared of guns they crap their pants if they see one to take away my rights because of a knee-jerk reaction after some crazy person commits a crime.
TAKING AWAY OUR GUNS IS NOT THE ANSWER. Taking away my right to protect myself or my family from a criminal or an over-reaching government isn't the answer either.
See below, John, and don't ever ask me a question like your second one again.
Why? Will you come round and shoot me?
It seemed a very logical question considering the reasons you claim to be armed for and your general dissatisfaction with your president.
John, there's just some things I'm not going to discuss. The remarks I made earlier are as far as I will dignify such a question.
I don't want to shoot anyone, John.
You seem to have gone off the deep end, asking, frankly but respectfully, stupid questions. I'm going to back away while you hopefully calm down.
You have a good evening.
I'm perfectly calm.
You know that our soldiers and your soldiers are on joint operations?
Well, our soldiers are not too happy about that, they say that your soldiers are far too confrontational. Faced with a group of youths your soldiers have their guns up in firing position whilst our soldiers will have a laugh and a joke with the youths.
Btw who were the bank robbers up against? The man in the street or professional guards?
The shootout was with the police. A man in the street in America may be a veteran former or current police officer or he or she could just have a lot of training in the use of firearms. I know a lot of people who have conceal permits and have proven to be proficient in the use of firearms.
John, I am not SecDef. How our soldiers act is something you'd have to ask him about. It does seem that our troops are being more prudent than yours but I have nothing but respect for your soldiers as well as ours.
Your last question should be directed to whoisit, not me.
If by "shooting match" you mean a fire fight, I would say prudent would be the best way to go.
"Acting with or showing care and thought for the future" has gotten some some of your guys and ours killed.
I mean prudent as in cautious, something I would think you'd want your own son to be in a war zone.
I'll go back to my original remark, John. "Acting with or showing care and thought for the future" has gotten some of your guys and ours killed.
Hopefully, sometime very soon all our guy will be leaving the great big litter box called the Middle East and coming home, John. I, for one, wouldn't have a problem with letting the barbarians kill each other, eliminating their 12th century mindset. Yes, I know that's harsh but there just comes a time when you just say, "Oh, to hell with you," and walk away.
John, the US and the UK are two vastly different countries, with vastly different cultures and problems. Yes, criminals in the UK can arm while you can't, but luckily you don't have as much of a culture of crime and violence as we do.
It is an emotional argument, because you are trying to compare apples and oranges, statistically.
No, not vastly different Jaxson, many of us try to emulate you, cabinet ministers look to your justice system as the epitome of dealing with prisoners.
But don't you ever wonder why the USA is head and shoulders above all other first world countries in gun crime?
Yes, vastly different. If you can't admit that, there's no point in discussion at all.
Every single factor of our demographics are different. Our politics are different. Our non-gun crime rates are different. You want to do comparative analysis to different frameworks, and that will never work. No statistician would agree with you. No scientist would agree with you. That kind of approach violates every principle of proper research.
You mean you wouldn't agree with me?
The statistics I quote are all as a result of "proper" research.
Like I said, not worth arguing with people who don't even understand the concept of controlling for variables...
Oh good, I'll find somebody else to discuss with while you go and swot up on variables.
Lol. Yeah, pesky variables. They have no place in statistical analysis!
Your not pulling the old "control for variables" shtick are you? Didn't you try that with me already? At least you mentioned it early this time. Didn't I refer you to studies by the Harvard School of Public Health (controlled variables and all)? Here's that post again, just in case you missed it:
. . . your objections to global comparisons of data are irrelevant. Domestic studies show the same. This one, from the Harvard School of Public Health, looks at State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership. Summary:
"Analysis that controlled for several measures of resource deprivation, urbanization, aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, and alcohol consumption found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men. In this analysis, states within the highest quartile of firearm prevalence had firearm homicide rates 114% higher than states within the lowest quartile of firearm prevalence. Overall homicide rates were 60% higher. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide was driven by gun-related homicide rates; non-gun-related homicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership."
Whether it is global data, or domestic data, controlled for different variables, the story is the same. There is a correlation between levels of gun ownership and gun homicide rate. Continual denial of that fact is futile. Besides, what purpose does that denial serve, other than to delay any sensible discussion about reducing the risk from firearms to society at large?
I did a review of that study before Don, let me see if I can find it, because I would prefer to not to have to re-write it.
Interesting but I doubt a firearm could actually pick itself up and walk into a school and pull its own trigger. I would suspect that the correlation between people and incidents of murder is a perfect 1:1.
As I always say: guns don't kill people, people (and guns) kill people.
Both variables have to be in the equation. Take just one variable away and no gun death can occur. But eliminating people from society is probably not the most sensible option. What variable does that leave? Guns. No guns. No gun death. Simple really.
No, that is not apples and oranges. If we're looking at the economy, we're looking at apples and oranges, if we're looking at healthcare, that's apples and oranges- when we're looking at crime, gun crime specifically, direct comparisons are very helpful here.
No, they're not.
Whatever, why argue with people who don't understand the principle of controlling for variables.
Actually you should argue with me if you have an understanding of variables, and relationships between variables specifically; allow me to introduce myself: Hollie Thomas. Part time writer and part time self employed consultant: SPSS my field specifically, I'll declare myself an expert when I've obtained my PhD. In other words, social research is my thang- crime and Comparative Social Policy, women's studies and social policy- amongst others.
Now, I feel that I definitely have something to learn form you, Jaxson. So, could you elaborate, specifically, "on this principle for controlling variables" and then, could you explain to me- in basic terms of course, why the US and UK are not suitable for comparison when it comes to crime and gun culture? Now you have my full attention.
How does wanting to own a gun equate to mental instability?
The instability comes in when these anti-gun nuts want to blame an inanimate object for a crime.
Damn, I just got a paper cut!!! Excuse me while I go sue the paper company that made the paper as well as the farm that grew the tree it was made from.
Come on, John, I'm being serious so please stop being flippant. There are people out there with real problems who are left to walk the streets with no help. There are people like this Lanza kid who should have been institutionalized. Problem is we have too many bleeding-hearts in this world who want to left them out, free them like butterflies so they can feel good about themselves.
You may consider a person wanting to own a gun as unstable. Another person won't. I own guns. I don't and, if I had a mentally handicapped person in my house, I wouldn't have a gun in the house. If I had a kid like this Lanza kid, he would be in an institution. I sure as hell wouldn't be taking him to the gun range for target practice.
You, as a liberal Englishman, don't like guns and want to get rid of them. As an American, I feel it's my Constitutional right to own them. Great. Now that we have that established, what should be done about those that want to use any means necessary to further their political agenda, even if it means getting there on the memory of 20 dead children? There should be a line drawn somewhere.
We need to stop blaming an inanimate object or trying to take them from law-abiding people and place the blame where it should be placed. The one at fault in Connecticut was the shooter and his irresponsible mother, not a gun that can't do a damn thing until it's used.
I've also seen one report where this Lanza kid tried to get in this school the day before and was turned away. Does anyone know if this is true or not?
no guns are bad and only are ever used for violence and obscene things like killing animals and people!!!!
A gun for hunting is fine. An assault type gun or similiar pistol should only be in the hands of law enforcement and our military.
Movingout, honestly, do you own any guns?
Have you ever had any firearms training?
Have you ever even fired a gun?
We have seen this same very emotional dialog , every time there has been a "mass shooting ", Yet does anything change ........No . Another bill ,another law ,....blah blah blahh and the worse part ........another easy anwer to your emotional manifestation of the day ! You have to attack a figurehead ......"GUNS" , and why ?......to relieve the self centered guilt complex that .....in the back of your mind says ' I have to do something ".........dont worry folks ....you'll get over this one too !
If you like , heres what you can really do !
- vote for political change to effect real mental health issues and $ [ non existant }in the US.
- stop the plea bargaining of violent crime to lesser charges
- Fix the broken legal system in America
- Judges that are soft on crime are ruining our country
- Get your kids away from the 24/7 Video games
- Protect your own
Could one gun in that school have ended this idiots rampage early !
It may or may not have ended it early. It could have made it worse. We'll never know!
John Holden Wrote:
Why does somebody who sees guns for what they are need either to be namby pamby or so scared of guns that they crap their pants?
Why haven't you shot your president yet?
That's your opinion, John.
As for the answer to your second question, it's insulting and disgusting that you would even ask such a question not to mention exceedingly stupid, John.
outlawing guns is wrong.
Cars accidents kill more people that heart attacks and guns combined - yet no cries to outlaw cars.
ive refined my position . if there is to be a gun in every hand. i want them to shoot slower. the first shot you get. the second one should have to take you a minute. rapid fire , high round weapons are military guns . we need to find a medium.
In other words, you want to go back to muzzleloaders.
What, the sort of weapons that were around when the constitution was written?
I think that's what aware wants. I got those, too. Only problem is our idiot government would fine a way to tax them as well. We're heading toward another revolution, John, just not against each other. Your side won't even be a part of it this time.
Most people in our society will always become extremely reactionary , they will always begin to emote thier way through the emotional shock of something like this happening , those who can't understand human nature are the the first to jump to the -easy fix. The immature will always seek the black or white solutions, like gun control , especially some one who doesn't understand either the gun or the person who picks one up! That person has probably never even owned a gun nor have they ever shot one. Thats the best way to absolve yourself of your sense of social guilt ? Quickly jump to a black and white decision , point your finger in the direction of someone else ,and say "Look , It's his fault .that guy over there , look he has a gun too! "........forget the fact that this is about a mentally disturbed young adult ! Forget that we actually have no way in this society to deal with a person who is mentally out of control , forget that merely a fraction of our tax dollars goes to any kind of mental health facilities or programs , or that our healthcare system turns its ugly head away from those who are out of touch with reality , or that your insurance company will drop you or increase your premiums to the point that you cant afford it , and forget the fact that so many of our kids are growing up almost entirely detached from society, developing mentally on their way through life through a video screen !, but you look to the easy answers .....ban the gun ! That will cure our culture of stupidity in America .
What quick decision? It's taken more than 220 years. . .
It would probably take much more than that, but think about it, deranged kid can just go into mum and pops bedroom and pick up a gun, or deranged kid has to go out on the street, mix with guys who probably scare the living daylights out of him and buy a gun.
I don't see what the point is in owning hand guns other than to aim them and shoot other people. I've spent 20-plus years in social work connected with law enforcement. I am not afraid of guns, but am married to a cop and have spent serious time thinking about what weapons I might see pointed at me or my husband. And I believe my right to live supercedes your right to carry a gun, any day.
But they aren't equal!
When has the right to take life been equal to the right to life?
My right to own a firearm is equal to her right to life. Sorry, the United States Constitution is very clear.
I obviously am not as aware of the US constitution as you are but I'm sure I would have remembered such a fact!
Perhaps you can remind me of where it says that the right to carry arms is equal to the right to life.
I know numerous LEOs. My son-in-law is one. All of them have told me they would much rather see more law-abiding people carrying legally as I do. Every one of these LEO's spouses have their HCP. It's simple. The police are a reactionary force with a response time of 15-20 minutes. If I have someone hell bent of killing me, I want the ability to protect my family and/or myself.
I can completely understand your fear for your husband's safety. I've seen that same look in my daughter's eyes. But she knows it's something she has to live with. She carries as well.
With all due respect, we must know differene officers. Most of the guys I work with in high crime areas in northern illinois, including Chicago, don't want any more guns anyway. And my source for response times for officers is a lot different than yours. Perhaps you are in a more rural area, but in the Chicago metro area, response time by emergency response is under 4 minutes. And that stat is based on the Illinois Crime Commission report, a not for profit group, not affiliated with any one law enforcement body.
Yes, in the UK the majority of the police are opposed to being armed.
I can respect that. I can understand the LEOs in Chicago feeling that way, Winter. It's gotten the worst reputation of any town in U.S. I want every LEO to go home safe at night. I'm just letting you know what I've encountered down here.
And it will take another two hundred years to mature this culture into real accountability in our society , "Ban the idiot parents " I say , the ones that coddle thier kids into adulthood through video games , through giving them anything they want , allowing any kinds of mental or social behaviour , no authorative figures in the households , no behavioral discipline , In my view a lot of the people you meet on the street are capable of these despicable acts of violence . Been to the courthouse or the police station lately and watch the revolving doors of justice , Its obvious that I can't say to those of you who point to easy answers and say , "get real " . Because you lack depth and understanding of the real problems and solutions too in these issues .
Guns are bad. Look at the stats. Americans are high up on Countrywide killings. Ordinary people do not need guns.
"Guns are bad "....perfect statement using the most in common sense ......People are bad ! A gun will just lay there until it rusts away back into the earth from which it came ......not the same though with a evil heart , They live forever !
Are guns good or bad? Why? Do they have personalities? It depends on the person holding the gun. But then it depends on the person who can turn anything convenient at hand to a weapon that can injure or kill someone. The joke goes that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
So are people good or bad? If they are allowed to be bad then they will be. Guns are a part of a culture, so lets be honest and just say that gun killings are part of American culture and part of life. If that is what the majority want, that is what the majority get. If the majority are not happy with some kids and teachers being murdered, yes it is sad and it is terrible - but just wait a while... Gun killings are happening all the time. How many in 2012 died from gun shootings?
A married friend of mine came back from the USA and told me she will never go to work or stay there, or have a family there. Reason - GUNS. She doesn't trust a culture that loves guns so much. Children deserve a good chance at life, but not like this - not surrounded by guns. And not by conditioning them to accept guns as somehow a good thing. The people in Connecticut would agree now, I'm sure.
Moral of the story: don't allow guns to have so much influence in American life. It brings everyone and the whole country down. Take a look at other modern countries that don't allow guns. Their schools are safer. So are their streets, their malls, their communities. In the USA the system of allowing and permitting guns is out of control. It's that simple. Something has to change. Especially as just now a 13 year old kid just got caught for threatening on Facebook to go to his school and shoot his friends. According to CBS, he has been charged with 2nd degree felony.
by egiv 10 years ago
There are too many guns in the United States. How many more shootings need to happen for people to realize that the second amendment is outdated. I'm not trying to say that nobody should be allowed to have one, I have nothing against hunters, but that they shouldn't be a dime a dozen like they are...
by keioncseals 7 years ago
In my opinion on guns is that guns don't kill people people using the gun for the wrong reasons that's what kills people because if you think about it when You put the gun on a table its not going to fire but when you pick the gun up off the table and pull the trigger it will fire What do you think
by Jeff Berndt 8 years ago
I just noticed something about the Fast and Furious controversy.Leaving aside the question of whether the operation was a good idea or not (I think not), I noticed that the Left and the Right have both seemed to flip-flop on their usual arguments about gun control.The Left usually wants to restrict...
by VC L Veasey 6 years ago
Some Say:" Guns Don't Kill People do" But Aren't Guns Weapons Created To Kill?
by flacoinohio 8 years ago
Do you believe modifying the Second Amendment is going to prevent mass acts of violence?This questions is for all of those situational or sunny day anti-gun advocates. Pro-gun advocates spend a lot of time and effort, not mention millions of dollars protecting the Second Amendment. If...
by Cindy Vine 9 years ago
Should guns be restricted to military, police and security guards?
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|