I believe Lincoln once said opposing idealogies is what makes America great.
That being said, if you own a gun it is 22 times more likely that gun will be used on yourself, a family member, or friend. Not on an intruder, not on a red coat.
There are case studies across the globe when it comes to gun violence. It's pretty simple to me, more weapons equal more destruction. Is access to weapons justifiable, are more weapons really the answer? I know you want to fall back on the second amendment, times have changed.
Believe it or not, weapons lead to destruction. No need to fear the red coat, or our own government, we need to protect ourselves, from ourselves.
I believe Lincoln once said opposing idealogies is what makes America great.
That being said, if you own a gun it is 22 times more likely that gun will be used on yourself, a family member, or friend. Not on an intruder, not on a red coat.
I'd like to see that study. I'd also like to know much more about it. What does it include in "22 times more likely...."
What if it wasn't 22? What if it was only 5x as likely for that gun to be used on someone you know? I have to stress an non justifiable number with weapons, means of destruction.
Humanity has proven to be irresponsible with power, throughout our existence.
I think as much as the government overreaches on our lives, it will be must worse if the general public wasn’t armed. I’ve mentioned this before though, and Haus recently said as much, that the culture of America is vastly different than other developed countries.
Western Europe *in general* isnt worried about their government rolling up on them. Australia did an amnesty program and for the most part it’s worked out fine.
America however, it wouldn’t work because we are completely different people as a whole. We can debate why that is, but that’s where we are currently.
I support the 2nd amendment to a point.
The dumbest argument I constantly come across is people saying they need an AR15 to defend their home. It’s a load of crap for sure.
The flip side to that however is my fellow liberals who think if all the guns are taken away, there would be minimum shootings. Criminals are called criminals for a reason.
But when we are able to maneuver past the BS, there are certain policies that can make the general public a bit safer.
The 2nd amendment shall not be infringed, but accessories are not weapons, and as such are not under protection of the 2nd amendment. So banning stocks and other accessories that are intended to circumvene the ban on full auto weapons should be restricted.
I understand hand guns and CCW and I support that, however these idiots who like to wave their rights in people’s faces by walking around in Walmart and chipotle with their rifles shouldn’t be allowed. That crap is stupid, it doesn’t keep people safe, and it only makes the public fearful of these “law abiding citizens”.
Another policy I would support is taking away irresponsible citizens guns. For example, you get drunk and start shooting in the air like a damn idiot? Congrats, you just lost your right.
Your kid got your gun and shot themselves or others, accidentally or not? Congrats, your irresponsibility and negligence just lost your right to own guns.
You aim at someone, but end up hitting an innocent bystander because of your inability to identify your target, congrats, no guns for you.
Another policy I would support if they actually fixed it is the terrorist watch list. If the government suspects that you are engaged in potential terrorism, then you should temporarily lose that right. However the government, legal fees paid for by government, should have 30-45 days to show up in court and provide evidence to why your on the list, no extensions. Failure to do so means that person is immediately removed and rights restored.
However, gun restrictions I don’t support for the most part would be a mental health check. Unless there hard evidence about the state of someone’s mental health, that policy can be severely abused by the government, and a way to essentially make a blanket ban on anybody for any trash reason.
People on one side need to understand that the 2nd amendment isn’t going anywhere. But the other side needs to understand that the general public has just as much to fear from law abiding citizens as they do criminals.
Because everyone is a law abiding citizen, until all of a sudden, they aren’t.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
It's a pretty long article but here are a couple snippets:
Quote:
But if we do look for now at correlation, it seems to me that the key question should focus on state total homicide rates, or perhaps (for reasons I describe below) total intentional homicide plus accidental gun death rates. And it turns out that there is essentially zero correlation between these numbers and state gun laws.
Quote:
The correlation between the homicide rate and Brady score in all 51 jurisdictions is +.032 (on a scale of -1 to +1), which means that states with more gun restrictions on average have very slightly higher homicide rates, though the tendency is so small as to be essentially zero. (If you omit the fatal gun accident rates, then the correlation would be +.065, which would make the more gun-restricting states look slightly worse; but again, the correlation would be small enough to be essentially zero, given all the other possible sources of variation.)
Obligatory:
Quote:
Now of course this doesn’t prove that gun laws have no effect on total homicide rates. Correlation, especially between just two variables, doesn’t show causation.
Perhaps there are other confounding factors (such as demographics, economics, and so on).
hmmmm what are the odds of being stabbed in your own home by one of your knives? Odds of being bit by your own dog? Odds of falling down your own stairs? Odds of being killed by a family member?
Oh I know what are the odds of dying in a car wreck when you ride in a car more than once a week, vs the odds of being killed in a car wreck if you never once in your life get into a car?
I’m glad I don’t run in your circles. I have never once in my 58 years seen anyone, drunk or not, point a weapon in the air and shoot it. Anyone drunk with a weapon should be in jail.
People that don’t lock their weapons around children who then harm themselves or others tend to get put in jail these days too.
People shooting innocent bystanders also get a vacation from freedom courtesy of the state as that’s manslaughter and then as a felon you already lose your right to possess one. People are responsible for the outcome of every bullet leaving their weapon. Oops is not a viable defense.
Why did you imply that this happens in my circles? That’s awfully rude.
Last edited by Swish; 10/08/1708:30 AM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I figured that such an example would have to come from experience as the event would be incredibly rare. But if you want to be offended that’s your prerogative.
I figured that such an example would have to come from experience as the event would be incredibly rare. But if you want to be offended that’s your prerogative.
it's not incredibly rare whatsoever. i can go on and on and on with this.
just because you make a rude comment doesn't mean i'm offended. i simply wanted to know what basis you came up with such a ridiculous comment.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
stop trying to get me to burn up my data, sprint is raping me right now.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I think as much as the government overreaches on our lives, it will be must worse if the general public wasn’t armed. I’ve mentioned this before though, and Haus recently said as much, that the culture of America is vastly different than other developed countries.
Western Europe *in general* isnt worried about their government rolling up on them. Australia did an amnesty program and for the most part it’s worked out fine.
America however, it wouldn’t work because we are completely different people as a whole. We can debate why that is, but that’s where we are currently.
I support the 2nd amendment to a point.
The dumbest argument I constantly come across is people saying they need an AR15 to defend their home. It’s a load of crap for sure.
The flip side to that however is my fellow liberals who think if all the guns are taken away, there would be minimum shootings. Criminals are called criminals for a reason.
But when we are able to maneuver past the BS, there are certain policies that can make the general public a bit safer.
The 2nd amendment shall not be infringed, but accessories are not weapons, and as such are not under protection of the 2nd amendment. So banning stocks and other accessories that are intended to circumvene the ban on full auto weapons should be restricted.
I understand hand guns and CCW and I support that, however these idiots who like to wave their rights in people’s faces by walking around in Walmart and chipotle with their rifles shouldn’t be allowed. That crap is stupid, it doesn’t keep people safe, and it only makes the public fearful of these “law abiding citizens”.
Another policy I would support is taking away irresponsible citizens guns. For example, you get drunk and start shooting in the air like a damn idiot? Congrats, you just lost your right.
Your kid got your gun and shot themselves or others, accidentally or not? Congrats, your irresponsibility and negligence just lost your right to own guns.
You aim at someone, but end up hitting an innocent bystander because of your inability to identify your target, congrats, no guns for you.
Another policy I would support if they actually fixed it is the terrorist watch list. If the government suspects that you are engaged in potential terrorism, then you should temporarily lose that right. However the government, legal fees paid for by government, should have 30-45 days to show up in court and provide evidence to why your on the list, no extensions. Failure to do so means that person is immediately removed and rights restored.
However, gun restrictions I don’t support for the most part would be a mental health check. Unless there hard evidence about the state of someone’s mental health, that policy can be severely abused by the government, and a way to essentially make a blanket ban on anybody for any trash reason.
People on one side need to understand that the 2nd amendment isn’t going anywhere. But the other side needs to understand that the general public has just as much to fear from law abiding citizens as they do criminals.
Because everyone is a law abiding citizen, until all of a sudden, they aren’t.
This is very well said, almost Clem like!
WE DON'T NEED A QB BEFORE WE GET A LINE THAT CAN PROTECT HIM my two cents...
Glad you said almost, or Haus would get #triggered
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Swish, You want sensible gun control!! And of course, that is a bad word. Both sides want an all or nothing approach, which is bad. Yes, I'm in support of the second amendment but I realize that all people do not need or should have a gun.
You would think that a list of people that are on a terrorist watch list would be unable to legally get a gun. Or people who have mental problems either. But a law abiding person should be able to have guns.
We need people that are not gun freaks nor the take every gun away crowd to make sensible laws or restrictions.
Swish, You want sensible gun control!! And of course, that is a bad word. Both sides want an all or nothing approach, which is bad. Yes, I'm in support of the second amendment but I realize that all people do not need or should have a gun.
You would think that a list of people that are on a terrorist watch list would be unable to legally get a gun. Or people who have mental problems either. But a law abiding person should be able to have guns.
We need people that are not gun freaks nor the take every gun away crowd to make sensible laws or restrictions.
What are you talking about?
The NRA has said they are for outlawing bump stocks. They are more than reasonable about it.
When I applied for a CCW I had to fill out an extensive questionaire about criminal/mental health history. AND THEN, I had to go before a judge and talk with him about it. AND THEN I had to go for finger printing. AND THEN they did a background check on me. BEFORE I could ever get my CCW.
I dont know what you want beyond that? Like seriously?
No laws will stop humans from commiting violence, ever. THAT LAS VEGAS DUDE LAUGHED AT LAWS WHILE HE MURDERED PEOPLE.
Eve, First, the NRA did not say they were for outlawing those stocks. They said it should be reviewed. When asked about a law for it, the NRA said no.
As far as what you had to go through, big deal, I had to go through all that ( except the judge part) to get my guns. So what is your point?? There are alot of places were all they need is a check or money order, thats it.
And as far as the other points in my post, tell me how letting someone on a terrorist list get a gun is a good thing? Or someone who has a history of mental illness having a gun a good thing?? Hell, we know dudes who have a history of domestic violence end up using their guns on the spouses. So I guess that is good also!!
Or maybe you are like those freaks I mentioned and thats why you are crying!!..LMAO
Hey Eve Freak, Apparently you don't get out much or use google because there are alot of states that only require a personal check/money order.
Also, me nor swish stated that there should be a ban on guns! I know mutants don't have good eyesight so I can understand how you did not see that.
But again, do you believe that some person on a terrorist list, a history of domestic abuse or mental illness should be able to legally get a gun? Its a simple question, try answering it!!
Hey Eve Freak, Apparently you don't get out much or use google because there are alot of states that only require a personal check/money order.
Also, me nor swish stated that there should be a ban on guns! I know mutants don't have good eyesight so I can understand how you did not see that.
But again, do you believe that some person on a terrorist list, a history of domestic abuse or mental illness should be able to legally get a gun? Its a simple question, try answering it!!
Ive answered your dumbass question 3 times now, please re read what I wrote then come back to me.
Hey Eve Freak, Apparently you don't get out much or use google because there are alot of states that only require a personal check/money order.
Also, me nor swish stated that there should be a ban on guns! I know mutants don't have good eyesight so I can understand how you did not see that.
But again, do you believe that some person on a terrorist list, a history of domestic abuse or mental illness should be able to legally get a gun? Its a simple question, try answering it!!
Ive answered your dumbass question 3 times now, please re read what I wrote then come back to me.
Tulsa, I would look at the threads again to see were the name calling started. And of course, when you ask specific questions and get insults back, it will open the flood gate from me!
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Citizens owning guns doesn't and never has bothered me.
What bothers me is how easy it is to accumulate such a large arsenal in a short period of time as the Vegas Shooter apparently did.
Also, another thing that bothers me is the ease with which a person can take a semi auto and turn it into a full auto... or in the case of these Bump Stocks they can make them apparently very close to full auto.
I'd like the following things addressed
1. Stronger and deeper background checks 2. Some kind of reporting system so that if a person wants to accumulate a large quantity of weapons in a short period of time, it would at least alert the authorities so they could do a welfare check on the person...
Neither of those two items is the end all be all solution, but it's a start.
3. Bump stocks and kits to turn Semi to full Auto should be banned or at least regulated in some fashion.
That won't stop everything either.
I don't want to infringe on peoples rights to bear arms, but I also don't want those same people to infringe on everyone else's rights to life either.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
