Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[BotanyBoy]

So is that quote not directly from the second amendment (or whichever amendment it is)?

The full 2nd amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Some people like the one you're agreeing with seem to think ONLY in this case "the right of the people" doesn't mean an individual right.

They think "the right of the people" is only an individual right in all the other amendments, but not this one.....because reasons.

And they read "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" as a pre-requite or condition to the individual right....because reasons and apparently a comma.

This is not supported by the language itself, legal precedent or rulings of any kind.

 

[My I]

How are you so willfully obtuse?
Hands, cocks, cars, phones, all the other things you keep listing, serve very clear and useful purposes outside their misuse AND were not designed with the purpose of killing things.
Guns don't really serve any purpose beyond killing things, other than your amusement. Is your amusement more important than the lives of those who are killed with them? I think not.
There's a whole lot of laws that annoy the crap out of me. It's irritating that I need to wear a seat belt, when clearly I'm a responsible driver, and when I'm fine about taking the risk of having an accident ... but the law says I do, because if I have an accident, the cost to society of fixing me is far great if I'm not buckled in. It's annoying that I have to put a fence around my swimming pool - and PAY for the fence as well, even though I don't have any kids of my own who are at risk of drowning in said pool. (I don't actually have a swimming pool, but you know what I mean.) When I'm carrying drinks to the pool, it's quite difficult holding onto them and opening the gate to the pool at the same time. Is that irritation and expense more important than a hypothetical toddler who might wander into my pool and drown? No.
Yes, I guess the state could say 'no swimming pools', in the way that I'd prefer they said 'no guns', because really swimming pools are just amusing in the way guns are. But actually, compliance with the laws around fencing swimming pools is pretty good, and fencing them is pretty effective in terms of preventing small humans drowning them, and there isn't a huge illegal market in unfenced swimming pools. I don't feel confident in saying the same about guns in the US. (Where I am is a different story - we're in much the same situation as described by zotique, and it seems to work well.) Yes, bummer that your amusement might be infringed upon because of the irresponsible actions of others ... but that's how the world works because we live in societies, not little states of one.

Completely missed the point again, didn't you.

BTW: Seatbelt laws? Legislation written by Dems, because the cars aren't safe enough. Let's not ensure DRIVERS are responsible and safe, that would infringe on their rights. Ban on texting and driving that are completely ignored, both by drivers and law enforcement to the point that crashes caused by cell phone usage are reported only as "distracted". That was another Dem bill. Fences around swimming pools? Don't know who wrote that law. Has it worked? Are backyard swimming pool drownings a thing of the past?

Amusement. That's funny too. You libs love to trivialize things that aren't important to you. But you will spit fire and venom when someone wants to restrict YOUR rights.

 

[KimGordon67]

Completely missed the point again, didn't you.

BTW: Seatbelt laws? Legislation written by Dems, because the cars aren't safe enough. Let's not ensure DRIVERS are responsible and safe, that would infringe on their rights. Ban on texting and driving that are completely ignored, both by drivers and law enforcement to the point that crashes caused by cell phone usage are reported only as "distracted". That was another Dem bill. Fences around swimming pools? Don't know who wrote that law. Has it worked? Are backyard swimming pool drownings a thing of the past?

Amusement. That's funny too. You libs love to trivialize things that aren't important to you. But you will spit fire and venom when someone wants to restrict YOUR rights.

I don't assess the usefulness of laws on the basis of who wrote them. (Also, we do assume drivers are responsible and safe - that's why we have licences - but we also know that accidents happen, often not because anyone was being 'irresponsible'.) I'm happy to give up my right to decide whether or not I want to risk crushing my skull on a windscreen)
I don't know how it works in the US, but here using a phone (unless hands free) and driving at the same time is completely illegal and that's enforced. I'm happy to give up my right to decide whether I can drive and text safely if it means I'm not at risk of other idiots making poor decisions in that respect.
And yes, it appears that the pool fencing legislation (again, here, not in the US) reduced swimming pool deaths by 80%. Seems like a pretty good outcome to me. I'm happy to give up my right to an unimpeded view from my hypothetical pool for that.

But please, if I've completely missed the point, do explain what it is.

 

[KimGordon67]

The full 2nd amendment.






Some people like the one you're agreeing with seem to think ONLY in this case "the right of the people" doesn't mean an individual right.

They think "the right of the people" is only an individual right in all the other amendments, but not this one.....because reasons.

And they read "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" as a pre-requite or condition to the individual right....because reasons and apparently a comma.

This is not supported by the language itself, legal precedent or rulings of any kind.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
As a whole, it's actually a really unclear bit of policy. Firstly, 'a well regulated militia' isn't defined. And if the well regulated militia and the security of the free state aren't integrally linked to the right to bear arms, why are they mentioned? Surely if it's a 'natural' right, it doesn't need justification?

 

[BotanyBoy]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
As a whole, it's actually a really unclear bit of policy. Firstly, 'a well regulated militia' isn't defined.

No it's pretty cut and dry actually which is why it's so hard for (D)'s, progressives and socialist to get around it.

If you take the language of the time, well regulated meant well trained.

Militia still means the same thing.

militia
NOUN

A military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/militia

And if the well regulated militia and the security of the free state aren't integrally linked to the right to bear arms, why are they mentioned? Surely if it's a 'natural' right, it doesn't need justification?

They are linked to the individual right, but not dependent upon it.

Especially when you consider the definition of militia and the use of "the right of the people" instead of military/army and the right of the state or collective authority.

EVERYTHING about 2A was put there to protect the right of the individuals in the civilian population to arm themselves from government infringement upon that right.

That's not to say however that it can't be reasonably restricted like other rights.

Buuuuut you can't get rid of the right, only manage it....which is why just short of getting most of the country and the SCOTUS to all ignore 2A and just do whatever they want because overwhelming majority .....all the gun prohibitionist out there are pretty much shit out of luck.

 

[KimGordon67]

No it's pretty cut and dry actually which is why it's so hard for (D)'s, progressives and socialist to get around it.

If you take the language of the time, well regulated meant well trained.

Militia still means the same thing.

militia
NOUN

A military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/militia





They are linked to the individual right, but not dependent upon it.

Especially when you consider the definition of militia and the use of "the right of the people" instead of military/army and the right of the state or collective authority.

EVERYTHING about 2A was put there to protect the right of the individuals in the civilian population to arm themselves from the government.

That's not to say however that it can't be reasonably restricted like other rights.

Buuuuut you can't get rid of the right, only manage it....which is why just short of getting most of the country and the SCOTUS to all ignore 2A and just do whatever they want .....all the prohibitionist out there are pretty much shit out of luck.

I've had the rights - 'naturally occurring' vs 'human made' argument elsewhere, probably with you involved. There's no point having it again, because neither side will concede. From my perspective, you absolutely can get rid of it ... and that's sort of evidenced by the fact that you're the only country in the world (with one or two other exceptions) that seem to see gun ownership as a 'right'.
But there's really no point having the argument again. If you think rights are naturally occurring things, and gun ownership is a right, then there's no debating the point.

 

[coachdb18]

And you are a dumbass. You know you can't be right so instead you insult and offend because you think it MEANS something to me. You think it will make me respect you? Keep going. The only way you can be a bigger asswipe is to gain weight.

"Pro-kid killing" That's fookin' HILARIOUS!!!! The LIBS passed the GUN FREE ZONE laws. How did that work out??? The LIBS wanted to end the "School to Prison Pipeline that kept Cruz from being committed to a mental institution or being locked up. It was the Liberal School Superintendent who thought it better to not have crimes reported so their numbers would look better. And the Liberal Sheriff that ignored all the warning signs and did NOTHING to stop Cruz. "Pro-Kid killing"? That's the badge YOU need to wear.

What happens when there is a trained professional in a school with a gun? Well maybe the media didn't report this weeks school shooting in Maryland. Quite a different outcome from Parkland and all the other "Gun Free Zones", wasn't it?

Why don't you get your head out of Hillary's twat and see reality?

Should we bother to ask which kills more kids, guns or abortion (abortion seems to be used for entertainment by the simple fact that it's used 99% for birth control, and thereby strictly to continue sexual satisfaction minus the baby, not to 'save the mothers life')

 

[KimGordon67]

Should we bother to ask which kills more kids, guns or abortion (abortion seems to be used for entertainment by the simple fact that it's used 99% for birth control, and thereby strictly to continue sexual satisfaction minus the baby, not to 'save the mothers life')

You've kind of fallen into your own trap here - you're fairly clearly equating abortions with gun deaths, so if you're anti-abortion (which you stridently are), you must be anti-guns as well.

(BTW, 'fetus' =/= 'kid' ... maybe if that's repeated enough, you'll eventually get the point.)

 

[phrodeau]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
As a whole, it's actually a really unclear bit of policy. Firstly, 'a well regulated militia' isn't defined. And if the well regulated militia and the security of the free state aren't integrally linked to the right to bear arms, why are they mentioned? Surely if it's a 'natural' right, it doesn't need justification?

Militia means the group of people who are willing and able to defend the country from its enemies. Well regulated means that they are fully trained and obliged to secure and maintain their arsenals at all times, under penalty of law. Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I've had the rights - 'naturally occurring' vs 'human made' argument elsewhere, probably with you involved. There's no point having it again, because neither side will concede.

Yes I believe I was arguing what they are or what they mean from the US'anian perspective and you kept trying to convince me how silly it was even though I don't buy into it and you never ever ever figured that out because you were so busy trying to talk past me.

From my perspective, you absolutely can get rid of it .

Yes we can, it would take the total and utter destruction of the USA and it's entire legal/political structure as it is currently understood.

Almost certainly causing another M'arican civil war and possibly even starting WWIII in the process given current conditions.

If you think rights are naturally occurring things, and gun ownership is a right, then there's no debating the point.

Opinions/philosophies on what rights are isn't what the debate was about.

The point being debated is where do we draw the restriction limits to the rights.

Some say "assault" weapons is a good line in the sand to draw...I argue that being a meaningless term to the world of weapons will accomplish little to nothing. Argue banning semi-automatic everything or just stop with the stupid 'assault' bullshit...all weapons are assault weapons....that's what the fuck weapons do.

 

[KimGordon67]

Yes I believe I was arguing what they are or what they mean from the US'anian perspective and you kept trying to convince me how silly it was even though I don't buy into it and you never ever ever figured that out because you were so busy trying to talk past me.



Yes we can, it would take the total and utter destruction of the USA and it's entire legal/political structure as it is currently understood.

Almost certainly causing another M'arican civil war and possibly even starting WWIII in the process given current conditions.





Opinions/philosophies on what rights are isn't what the debate was about.

The point being debated is where do we draw the restriction limits to the rights.

Some say "assault" weapons is a good line in the sand to draw...I argue that being a meaningless term to the world of weapons will accomplish little to nothing. Argue banning semi-automatic everything or just stop with the stupid 'assault' bullshit...all weapons are assault weapons....that's what the fuck weapons do.

Bizarrely, I'm in agreement with you there. I don't think anyone should own a gun, unless they're a law enforcement agent, or an actual hunter. And it seems like it's pretty easy to define what sorts of guns are needed in those two instances. (There's probably a few other exceptions that I can't think of right now, but that's my general position.)

 

[BotanyBoy]

Bizarrely, I'm in agreement with you there. I don't think anyone should own a gun, unless they're a law enforcement agent, or an actual hunter.

That's a reasonable and logically consistent position.

Unlike the 'assault weapons' derpinas who just want to drop buzz words and are so fucking terrified of information on the topic they persist in their derp long after people point out to them they aren't actually banning any weapons.

"assault weapons ban" is just such a shiny object of a phrase they can't help themselves.

And it seems like it's pretty easy to define what sorts of guns are needed in those two instances.

It's not unless you're just going to do ignorant lefty shit and draw arbitrary lines wherever sounds good instead of figuring things out because real issues are complex and difficult to manage and arbitrary bullshit is just SO much easier.

(There's probably a few other exceptions that I can't think of right now, but that's my general position.)

Lots of anti-gun folks are fine with the powerful politicians and big baller celebrities surrounding themselves with guns....especially if they are anti-gun.

It seems that it's only poor/common people they don't want having any physical security. Call the cops after you've been victimized!!

 

[KimGordon67]

That's a reasonable and logically consistent position.

Unlike the 'assault weapons' derpinas who just want to drop buzz words and are so fucking terrified of information on the topic they persist in their derp long after people point out to them they aren't actually banning any weapons.

"assault weapons ban" is just such a shiny object of a phrase they can't help themselves.



It's not unless you're just going to do ignorant lefty shit and draw arbitrary lines wherever sounds good instead of figuring things out because real issues are complex and difficult to manage and arbitrary bullshit is just SO much easier.



Lots of anti-gun folks are fine with the powerful politicians and big baller celebrities surrounding themselves with guns....especially if they are anti-gun.

It seems that it's only poor/common people they don't want having any physical security. Call the cops after you've been victimized!!

You almost said something nice to me!

 

[Blue]

It seems that it's only poor/common people they don't want having any physical security. Call the cops after you've been victimized!!

Yeah, that's kind of how cops work.
In the UK we have probably the 2nd most restrictive gun laws in the world, we don't even arm the vast majority of our cops, and yet we're 5x less likely to be murdered than in the USA (per capita).

Everybody here is unarmed and we enjoy far more physical security than in the USA. It's great.

This idea that more guns = more safety is fundamentally just not true. It doesn't correlate with reality.

 

[KimGordon67]

Yeah, that's kind of how cops work.
In the UK we have probably the 2nd most restrictive gun laws in the world, we don't even arm the vast majority of our cops, and yet we're 5x less likely to be murdered than in the USA (per capita).

Everybody here is unarmed and we enjoy far more physical security than in the USA. It's great.

This is sort of my argument ... it's a lot about the culture you create around guns. If you create a culture in which gun ownership is normalised, you do end up almost needing a gun for self protection (and while I don't agree that gun ownership is a 'right', natural or otherwise, I do think self protection is). But if you have a cultural context in which gun ownership isn't normalised, making them easy to access actually compromises your right to self protection. As I've said elsewhere, numerous times, my right to self protection is significantly enhanced by the fact that I can assume any attacker is NOT carrying a gun.

 

[My I]

I don't assess the usefulness of laws on the basis of who wrote them. (Also, we do assume drivers are responsible and safe - that's why we have licences - but we also know that accidents happen, often not because anyone was being 'irresponsible'.) I'm happy to give up my right to decide whether or not I want to risk crushing my skull on a windscreen)
I don't know how it works in the US, but here using a phone (unless hands free) and driving at the same time is completely illegal and that's enforced. I'm happy to give up my right to decide whether I can drive and text safely if it means I'm not at risk of other idiots making poor decisions in that respect.
And yes, it appears that the pool fencing legislation (again, here, not in the US) reduced swimming pool deaths by 80%. Seems like a pretty good outcome to me. I'm happy to give up my right to an unimpeded view from my hypothetical pool for that.

But please, if I've completely missed the point, do explain what it is.

You register your car and have a driver's licence and insurance because you drive your car on public streets, roads and hiways. You drive among other drivers. You can drive your car, on roads through a public park. I cannot take my guns to that park and set up a target and start shooting. No matter how safe I ensure the area is. My guns, as are most guns in this country, are fired in the closed, controlled environment of a gun club/range. In some cases, if you own a large piece pf property with a hillside or man-made berm to shoot into with no risk to neighbors and must be at least 100 yards from any roadways, you can shoot on your own property. But I cannot setup a bullet trap and shoot in my basement in town. There are half a dozen laws I'd be breaking.

To legally carry a gun in public, I had to go through training, a proficiency test, and submit to a full NICS background check and be fingerprinted. Did you go through that to get your DL? No you took a written test, drove around the block and parallel parked. In some states you don't even have to drive around the block. And in a few you don't even have to get into the car at all, just take the written exam to show you know what the signs mean.

Yep. That's reason to believe you are safe and responsible.

Moreover, If you drive illegally, even recklessly, even if you kill someone in the process, your licence may be suspended but you will get it back when the suspension expires. Maybe sooner. I worked with a guy who was serving a suspension for DUI. His 3rd offense, but a judge issued a special temporary permit for him to drive to and from work. He got busted again. He could still drive to work but had to have a breathalizer device installed in his car.

If a man argues with his wife and decides to leave until she cools off, but she runs behind the car to stop him and he hits her, he can be convicted of domestic violence and can NEVER be in possession of a gun again. Ever.

If his wife throws a vase and hits him and is convicted of domestic violence, she cannot be in possession of a gun or live in a residence where there are guns present. EVER. So he has a choice, divorce her or get rid of his guns. (Personally, if my SO throws a vase at me, that relationship is over at that moment. PERIOD)

If a gun owner has a few drinks, drives down the street and is hit by someone who ran a red light and that person dies, he still gets convicted of involuntary manslaughter and can never own a gun again. EVER. Even though he didn't even have a gun in the car.

But in each case they can still own a car, have a driver's licence and drive on public streets.

So tell me again how cars are more regulated than guns?

And the same laws apply here on cell phone use. But I see people all day long driving like idiots, completely oblivious to what is going on around them while holding a cell phone to their ear. Or right in front of their face. Or typing messages with the phone right in front of them. I bet it happens all the time in your country too. Because those people are responsible and great multi-taskers and bla... bla... bla.... They have a dozen reasons that law doesn't apply to them. And I'd bet $10 to a donut you do it to. That's ok. You don't have to admit it to me. But you better admit it to yourself.

And lastly....

You're telling me you are not in the USA? Not from here, not living here? Prob'ly never even BEEN here.

WHAT THE FUCK DO OUR LAWS HAVE TO DO WITH YOU?

Your country must be absolutely PERFECT, eh?

 

[KimGordon67]

You register your car and have a driver's licence and insurance because you drive your car on public streets, roads and hiways. You drive among other drivers. You can drive your car, on roads through a public park. I cannot take my guns to that park and set up a target and start shooting. No matter how safe I ensure the area is. My guns, as are most guns in this country, are fired in the closed, controlled environment of a gun club/range. In some cases, if you own a large piece pf property with a hillside or man-made berm to shoot into with no risk to neighbors and must be at least 100 yards from any roadways, you can shoot on your own property. But I cannot setup a bullet trap and shoot in my basement in town. There are half a dozen laws I'd be breaking.

To legally carry a gun in public, I had to go through training, a proficiency test, and submit to a full NICS background check and be fingerprinted. Did you go through that to get your DL? No you took a written test, drove around the block and parallel parked. In some states you don't even have to drive around the block. And in a few you don't even have to get into the car at all, just take the written exam to show you know what the signs mean.

Yep. That's reason to believe you are safe and responsible.

Moreover, If you drive illegally, even recklessly, even if you kill someone in the process, your licence may be suspended but you will get it back when the suspension expires. Maybe sooner. I worked with a guy who was serving a suspension for DUI. His 3rd offense, but a judge issued a special temporary permit for him to drive to and from work. He got busted again. He could still drive to work but had to have a breathalizer device installed in his car.

If a man argues with his wife and decides to leave until she cools off, but she runs behind the car to stop him and he hits her, he can be convicted of domestic violence and can NEVER be in possession of a gun again. Ever.

If his wife throws a vase and hits him and is convicted of domestic violence, she cannot be in possession of a gun or live in a residence where there are guns present. EVER. So he has a choice, divorce her or get rid of his guns. (Personally, if my SO throws a vase at me, that relationship is over at that moment. PERIOD)

If a gun owner has a few drinks, drives down the street and is hit by someone who ran a red light and that person dies, he still gets convicted of involuntary manslaughter and can never own a gun again. EVER. Even though he didn't even have a gun in the car.

But in each case they can still own a car, have a driver's licence and drive on public streets.

So tell me again how cars are more regulated than guns?

And the same laws apply here on cell phone use. But I see people all day long driving like idiots, completely oblivious to what is going on around them while holding a cell phone to their ear. Or right in front of their face. Or typing messages with the phone right in front of them. I bet it happens all the time in your country too. Because those people are responsible and great multi-taskers and bla... bla... bla.... They have a dozen reasons that law doesn't apply to them. And I'd bet $10 to a donut you do it to. That's ok. You don't have to admit it to me. But you better admit it to yourself.

And lastly....

You're telling me you are not in the USA? Not from here, not living here? Prob'ly never even BEEN here.

WHAT THE FUCK DO OUR LAWS HAVE TO DO WITH YOU?

Your country must be absolutely PERFECT, eh?

... and yet mass shooters seem to get hold of guns alarmingly easily.

I'm not arguing for specific types of regulations of specific types of guns - I'm arguing for them being gone altogether. As I noted above, the problem in the US isn't really legal, it's cultural. Y'all have normalised gun ownership, and how you have to deal with the consequences of that.

(Also, you know that concern for other human beings isn't generally something that's bound by national borders. Only Americans seems to think that's the case.)

 

[Blue]

[...]

The entire argument there is just superfluous.
You live in a country that is unarguably far less safe than almost all other developed countries, I think Russia is the only industrialized country that beats the USA in intentional homicide rate, and one of the primary reasons why the USA is less safe is specifically because of the unparalleled ample access to firearms, which results in facts like the US crime rate being half that of the UK, but 5x more deadly.

If you're completely willing to just ignore that and refuse to address that frankly abysmal fact because of nonsensical talking points (such as more guns = more safety) with no basis in reality then honestly you just look like some sort of cultist from the outside.

I've literally never heard anybody in the USA call for taking all the guns away. It generally just seems to be people calling for them not to be sold at walmart as though its a foodstuff.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Advertising slogan dreamed up by the NRA in the 1970s when someone came up with the bright idea of selling guns to impressionable, insecure men.

Yes we can, it would take the total and utter destruction of the USA and it's entire legal/political structure as it is currently understood.

Almost certainly causing another M'arican civil war and possibly even starting WWIII in the process given current conditions.
.

 

[My I]

The entire argument there is just superfluous.
You live in a country that is unarguably far less safe than almost all other developed countries, I think Russia is the only industrialized country that beats the USA in intentional homicide rate, and one of the primary reasons why the USA is less safe is specifically because of the unparalleled ample access to firearms, which results in facts like the US crime rate being half that of the UK, but 5x more deadly.

If you're completely willing to just ignore that and refuse to address that frankly abysmal fact because of nonsensical talking points (such as more guns = more safety) with no basis in reality then honestly you just look like some sort of cultist from the outside.

I've literally never heard anybody in the USA call for taking all the guns away. It generally just seems to be people calling for them not to be sold at walmart as though its a foodstuff.

... and yet mass shooters seem to get hold of guns alarmingly easily.

I'm not arguing for specific types of regulations of specific types of guns - I'm arguing for them being gone altogether. As I noted above, the problem in the US isn't really legal, it's cultural. Y'all have normalised gun ownership, and how you have to deal with the consequences of that.

(Also, you know that concern for other human beings isn't generally something that's bound by national borders. Only Americans seems to think that's the case.)

So punish the CRIMINALS! Not he honest law abiding citizens. Blaming inanimate objects is foolish. CRIMINALLY FOOLISH.

The 5 biggest mass killings in the USA were not committed with guns at all. The biggest was committed with plane tickets and killed more people than the next 10 combined.

Punish the criminals. Where is the problem with that? Is punishing the bad guys infringing on their rights? Do they just need a hug to cure them of their evil ways?

Do you really think a new law banning guns is going to stop them? The current laws that they broke didn't stop them but new ones would? If you seriously think so then you are delusional.

Every year there are over 6 MILLION violent crimes that are PREVENTED by a citizen with a gun. In the vast majority of those cases no shots were fired, no one was killed and no one injured. What happens when you take that protection away from them? Last year more than 80,000 women stopped a sexual predator with a gun. You want to tell them they shouldn't have a gun? Go ahead, I DARE you.

Did the media in your country even mention the school shooting in Maryland two days ago? Wasn't a mass shooting, so prob'ly not. Know why it wasn't a mass shooting? Because a good guy with a gun stopped the shooter before he could fire a third shot. This was in a gun free zone. Did that stop the shooter? In Maryland you cannot possess a handgun if you are under 21. Did that stop him? Murder is illegal. Did that stop him? No. NONE of the laws written to prevent this sort of thing stopped him. What DID stop him? One shot from a competent man placed there to protect the children.

Yes. The USA has a serious problem with crime. And thanks to liberal budget cuts Police forces are, on average, operating at less than 60% of their recommended strength. That's why it takes the 15-20 minutes to respond to an emergency situation. But you want to take away the citizen's right to protect himself and his family? You want to take away the 6 million times a year when a gun is used to STOP a crime. You want those 80,000 women to be raped, tortured and strangled or stabbed to death because they shouldn't have a gun.

The truth is they shouldn't NEED a gun to defend themselves. But we DO have violent criminals here. And we have a great many criminals her that came from other countries. And until we can do something to stop the criminals, the good guys NEED guns.

 

[coachdb18]

You register your car and have a driver's licence and insurance because you drive your car on public streets, roads and hiways. You drive among other drivers. You can drive your car, on roads through a public park. I cannot take my guns to that park and set up a target and start shooting. No matter how safe I ensure the area is. My guns, as are most guns in this country, are fired in the closed, controlled environment of a gun club/range. In some cases, if you own a large piece pf property with a hillside or man-made berm to shoot into with no risk to neighbors and must be at least 100 yards from any roadways, you can shoot on your own property. But I cannot setup a bullet trap and shoot in my basement in town. There are half a dozen laws I'd be breaking.

To legally carry a gun in public, I had to go through training, a proficiency test, and submit to a full NICS background check and be fingerprinted. Did you go through that to get your DL? No you took a written test, drove around the block and parallel parked. In some states you don't even have to drive around the block. And in a few you don't even have to get into the car at all, just take the written exam to show you know what the signs mean.

Yep. That's reason to believe you are safe and responsible.

Moreover, If you drive illegally, even recklessly, even if you kill someone in the process, your licence may be suspended but you will get it back when the suspension expires. Maybe sooner. I worked with a guy who was serving a suspension for DUI. His 3rd offense, but a judge issued a special temporary permit for him to drive to and from work. He got busted again. He could still drive to work but had to have a breathalizer device installed in his car.

If a man argues with his wife and decides to leave until she cools off, but she runs behind the car to stop him and he hits her, he can be convicted of domestic violence and can NEVER be in possession of a gun again. Ever.

If his wife throws a vase and hits him and is convicted of domestic violence, she cannot be in possession of a gun or live in a residence where there are guns present. EVER. So he has a choice, divorce her or get rid of his guns. (Personally, if my SO throws a vase at me, that relationship is over at that moment. PERIOD)

If a gun owner has a few drinks, drives down the street and is hit by someone who ran a red light and that person dies, he still gets convicted of involuntary manslaughter and can never own a gun again. EVER. Even though he didn't even have a gun in the car.

But in each case they can still own a car, have a driver's licence and drive on public streets.

So tell me again how cars are more regulated than guns?

And the same laws apply here on cell phone use. But I see people all day long driving like idiots, completely oblivious to what is going on around them while holding a cell phone to their ear. Or right in front of their face. Or typing messages with the phone right in front of them. I bet it happens all the time in your country too. Because those people are responsible and great multi-taskers and bla... bla... bla.... They have a dozen reasons that law doesn't apply to them. And I'd bet $10 to a donut you do it to. That's ok. You don't have to admit it to me. But you better admit it to yourself.

And lastly....

You're telling me you are not in the USA? Not from here, not living here? Prob'ly never even BEEN here.

WHAT THE FUCK DO OUR LAWS HAVE TO DO WITH YOU?

Your country must be absolutely PERFECT, eh?

Aside from those 5% of high crime counties, America is a SAFER place to live than most any other area of the world, BECAUSE of guns....

https://i.imgur.com/Q0rNadc.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/LaM1PhZ.gif

 

[KimGordon67]

So punish the CRIMINALS! Not he honest law abiding citizens. Blaming inanimate objects is foolish. CRIMINALLY FOOLISH.

The 5 biggest mass killings in the USA were not committed with guns at all. The biggest was committed with plane tickets and killed more people than the next 10 combined.

Punish the criminals. Where is the problem with that? Is punishing the bad guys infringing on their rights? Do they just need a hug to cure them of their evil ways?

Do you really think a new law banning guns is going to stop them? The current laws that they broke didn't stop them but new ones would? If you seriously think so then you are delusional.

Every year there are over 6 MILLION violent crimes that are PREVENTED by a citizen with a gun. In the vast majority of those cases no shots were fired, no one was killed and no one injured. What happens when you take that protection away from them? Last year more than 80,000 women stopped a sexual predator with a gun. You want to tell them they shouldn't have a gun? Go ahead, I DARE you.

Did the media in your country even mention the school shooting in Maryland two days ago? Wasn't a mass shooting, so prob'ly not. Know why it wasn't a mass shooting? Because a good guy with a gun stopped the shooter before he could fire a third shot. This was in a gun free zone. Did that stop the shooter? In Maryland you cannot possess a handgun if you are under 21. Did that stop him? Murder is illegal. Did that stop him? No. NONE of the laws written to prevent this sort of thing stopped him. What DID stop him? One shot from a competent man placed there to protect the children.

Yes. The USA has a serious problem with crime. And thanks to liberal budget cuts Police forces are, on average, operating at less than 60% of their recommended strength. That's why it takes the 15-20 minutes to respond to an emergency situation. But you want to take away the citizen's right to protect himself and his family? You want to take away the 6 million times a year when a gun is used to STOP a crime. You want those 80,000 women to be raped, tortured and strangled or stabbed to death because they shouldn't have a gun.

The truth is they shouldn't NEED a gun to defend themselves. But we DO have violent criminals here. And we have a great many criminals her that came from other countries. And until we can do something to stop the criminals, the good guys NEED guns.

Where's your citation for these stats - because I've tried quite hard to find exactly these data and haven't been able to. Can you provide a link to where you got the figures from?

 

[Blue]

[...]

Where's your citation for these stats - because I've tried quite hard to find exactly these data and haven't been able to. Can you provide a link to where you got the figures from?

You don't even need the statistics to debunk it. The entire post is an attempt to rebut the reality that making guns harder to access will decrease gun deaths. It's absurd and demonstrably untrue on the very face of it.

@My_I There's literally no point conversing with you if you don't understand how regulation works or even what the word means, or if you can't even follow (or refuse to acknowledge) that two-step logic. There's clearly nothing anybody can say to change your mind so why are any of us wasting our time here?

@Coachdb the deaths from mass shootings make up something like 0.4% of all gun deaths in the USA annually. Third time I've said it, but a person is 5x more likely to be murdered in the USA than in the UK and that statistic is roughly the same for the rest of the industrialized world.
It's like your being intentionally dishonest.

 

[coachdb18]

Yes. The USA has a serious problem with crime. And thanks to liberal budget cuts Police forces are, on average, operating at less than 60% of their recommended strength. That's why it takes the 15-20 minutes to respond to an emergency situation. But you want to take away the citizen's right to protect himself and his family? You want to take away the 6 million times a year when a gun is used to STOP a crime. You want those 80,000 women to be raped, tortured and strangled or stabbed to death because they shouldn't have a gun.

Obama put our police in the crosshairs, with many assaults on and excuses for them, beginning with his 'beer summit'. The number of cops ambushed was never anywhere near the problem it was until HE started blaming the cops for black crime.. Since then, it's demoralized the cops, and I can't even imagine anyone wanting to be a cop now under the cloud he established. THAT's insane

 

[KimGordon67]

You don't even need the statistics to debunk it. The entire post is an attempt to rebut the reality that making guns harder to access will decrease gun deaths. It's absurd and demonstrably untrue on the very face of it.

@My_I There's literally no point conversing with you if you don't understand how regulation works or even what the word means, or if you can't even follow (or refuse to acknowledge) that two-step logic. There's clearly nothing anybody can say to change your mind so why are any of us wasting our time here?

@Coachdb the deaths from mass shootings make up something like 0.4% of all gun deaths in the USA annually. It's like your being intentionally dishonest.

No, but I'm interested to see them. So My_I, do please provide the link.