07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 135136137138139 ...
tools
  1. Live2ride883's Avatar
    You can't stop a bullet with a gun ether?

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    But I can stop the person(s) trying to use a gun to harm my family with a bullet or 300...
    09-18-2013 11:20 AM
  2. Scott7217's Avatar
    What do "the bad guys" have?
    Would it be realistic if I say the bad guys have fully automatic AK-47 rifles? In this situation, they represent a bigger threat than criminals armed only with pistols.
    09-18-2013 01:54 PM
  3. Scott7217's Avatar
    Simply put, the government, whose authority does not exceed citizen's civil and inherent rights,does not have the constitutional authority to disallow any weapons, thus rendering all such laws which are currently made and enforced unconstitutional, null and void.
    That's a good point. Can a company that makes weapons for the military and the police simply refuse to sell them to civilians? In this case, it's not a situation where the government is banning them. Alternatively, could a company simply charge civilians a lot more for the same weapons, making them prohibitively expensive?
    09-18-2013 02:05 PM
  4. Aquila's Avatar
    Would it be realistic if I say the bad guys have fully automatic AK-47 rifles? In this situation, they represent a bigger threat than criminals armed only with pistols.
    I don't necessarily think that every Joe Schmoe should have the ability to easily gain access to anything that could conceivably be brought to bear against them, but that it's a very difficult question to answer how much potential force is acceptable or not (and to whom? the person, their neighbor, the criminal?) when one is preparing for a potentiality in which force or lethal force may be required in self defense. As we know, defensive weapons can easily be turned into offensive weapons, at the whim of the person holding them.
    Fairclough likes this.
    09-18-2013 02:07 PM
  5. Scott7217's Avatar
    You don't have to be an expert, but at least know the basics.
    I'm certainly trying to do my part. For example, I know that it is a mistake to put your rifle sight on backwards. There was a SWAT team member who forgot about that.

    (This is what I am talking about.)

    Also, I'm paying more attention to the lack of trigger discipline shown in movies and TV shows.
    09-18-2013 02:15 PM
  6. Scott7217's Avatar
    I don't necessarily think that every Joe Schmoe should have the ability to easily gain access to anything that could conceivably be brought to bear against them, but that it's a very difficult question to answer how much potential force is acceptable or not (and to whom? the person, their neighbor, the criminal?) when one is preparing for a potentiality in which force or lethal force may be required in self defense. As we know, defensive weapons can easily be turned into offensive weapons, at the whim of the person holding them.
    So, in the situation I described (i.e. bad guys with fully automatic AK-47 rifles), what would you think is appropriate for self-defense? In this case, the weapon in the hands of the adversary is known.
    09-18-2013 02:19 PM
  7. Live2ride883's Avatar
    I'm certainly trying to do my part. For example, I know that it is a mistake to put your rifle sight on backwards. There was a SWAT team member who forgot about that.

    (This is what I am talking about.)

    Also, I'm paying more attention to the lack of trigger discipline shown in movies and TV shows.
    Take a few hours and stop by a local gun store, and spend some time with the salesperson. Please don't go to large retail chain like Walmart, or Cabella's, you'll find people more than willing to answer all your questions. You might also want to spend time at a range. You can rent just about any thing from a small snub nosed .38 all the way up to a .50 cal desert eagle, or an ar15.

    I don't want to sound like I am trying to turn you into a gun collector, I just want you to have the information that you need to make the decision on you own. Most of that is going to be by talking to people with experience, and holding the gun, firing it, learning how to strip it down for cleaning etc.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    09-18-2013 02:25 PM
  8. Scott7217's Avatar
    On a related note, I heard about an interesting response from an FAA official during a public hearing. The FAA regulates air planes. A member of the public said that he likes to fly a remote-controlled drone using his smartphone. (It's basically something like a toy helicopter.) This person also said that he has a firearms permit, so he asked the FAA official if he could attach a pistol to the drone and fly it around.

    The FAA official said no, it would illegal under FAA regulations. I'm not sure what was the exact reasoning. Perhaps it's something that could be challenged in court. Still, it is an interesting idea. For now, though, it appears that you cannot create your own little air force.
    09-18-2013 02:40 PM
  9. llamabreath's Avatar
    For now, though, it appears that you cannot create your own little air force.
    Dammit

    09-18-2013 03:05 PM
  10. Live2ride883's Avatar
    For now, though, it appears that you cannot create your own little air force.
    According to Rev. Jesse Jackson my ar15's can shoot down full size planes in flight....
    09-18-2013 03:30 PM
  11. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    According to Rev. Jesse Jackson my ar15's can shoot down full size planes in flight....
    Yeah, and to think some states won't let you deer hunt with a .223 round because its not deadly enough.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    09-18-2013 05:04 PM
  12. Fairclough's Avatar
    Not really, its the most incredible blog.
    Simple fact is in the words of the Virginian arms rep 'more pools you have more drownings, more guns more deaths'.


    To be honest, one day the love of guns will hurt your nation more than you can imagine. Ours hurt our nation almost 20 years ago and soon you might realise yours is doing the same.

    Simple fact is we were having massacres frequently, we remove the main weapon used and they magically stop. Call it what you like. Gun control works.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    msndrstood likes this.
    09-18-2013 07:02 PM
  13. Fairclough's Avatar
    To be honest half of that doesn't apply to me as we do have a registry. We do hand out free condoms to stop aids, our doctors so give free blood tests. To be honest I don't think a person being affected by a ped and shot in a massacre are quiet the same thing. When the constitution was written there was slavery, things get adjusted with time.


    If you want to see my evidence go back to my prior posts because I can't be bothered reposting the same statistics. Basically anyone with credibility would say its an anomaly with the data.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    msndrstood likes this.
    09-18-2013 07:04 PM
  14. festinator's Avatar
    Why is the USA so in love with guns?

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using AC Forums mobile app
    09-18-2013 07:11 PM
  15. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    Not really, its the most incredible blog.
    Simple fact is in the words of the Virginian arms rep 'more pools you have more drownings, more guns more deaths'.


    To be honest, one day the love of guns will hurt your nation more than you can imagine. Ours hurt our nation almost 20 years ago and soon you might realise yours is doing the same.

    Simple fact is we were having massacres frequently, we remove the main weapon used and they magically stop. Call it what you like. Gun control works.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    Theoretically. No guns here in the US. A man sits outside the aurora theater. He waits til the movie lets out and runs over 20 people with his truck. Sandy hook lunatic has no access to firearms so he figures out how to make a bomb on the internet. Sets it off in a classroom killing 20. You still have the same amount of death, it just happened a different way. Your gun ban changed only the how. You just don't understand the resolve people have here about their rights. Many people would not simply say ok...here's my gun. It has the potential to be a bad situation in a hurry.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    qxr and Live2ride883 like this.
    09-18-2013 07:27 PM
  16. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    What is your obsession to rid the USA of guns? What does it bother anyone what I have? Everyone I know with a gun, never used one on someone. If you don't like them, don't buy them. Why are you constantly trying to tell us what we are to do?
    You guys need to unplug from the news and relax. One reason these public murders happen is because the news plasters these asshats faces all over the front page. Do you know the names or faces of any public shooters? I bet you do. Now, can you name or remember any faces of the victims (by memory only)? I bet you can't. The media are blood sucking leaches that will not take 1 shred of responsibility.
    cdmjlt369, qxr and Live2ride883 like this.
    09-18-2013 08:23 PM
  17. llamabreath's Avatar
    What is your obsession to rid the USA of guns? What does it bother anyone what I have? Everyone I know with a gun, never used one on someone. If you don't like them, don't buy them. Why are you constantly trying to tell us what we are to do?
    You guys need to unplug from the news and relax. One reason these public murders happen is because the news plasters these asshats faces all over the front page. Do you know the names or faces of any public shooters? I bet you do. Now, can you name or remember any faces of the victims (by memory only)? I bet you can't. The media are blood sucking leaches that will not take 1 shred of responsibility.
    Great post. :thumbup:

    My father was a cop for twenty years in New York and even he never had to shoot anyone.

    09-18-2013 08:29 PM
  18. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Fairclough: You seem to summarily dismiss any fact or statistic from myself and other supporters of the Second amendment as if they don't matter or we just made them up. You refuse to even acknowledge the basic difference between an automatic/select fire weapon and a semiautomatic.

    Yet you expect us to accept every thing you say as the truth and we should all change our core beliefs simply because you "say" that your way is better.
    qxr likes this.
    09-18-2013 08:41 PM
  19. anon(430792)'s Avatar
    How many people do you see arming themselves with a hammer, baseball bat or a car? rarely any. People only buy them for their purpose. Same reason you want a gun, I could claim its for self defence, killing animals in area's, just bombing stuff as a hobby? DOes it sound silly? Yes it does and now you know how your view kinda sounds to someone who has been in a society which has evolved around from gun's and weaponry of that kind.
    FASTSTATS - Injuries

    I'd say about the same amount of people die by cars as they do by guns.

    On the reasons you would want a nuclear weapon: If you need a nuclear weapon for self defense (by that I mean, anything less destructive won't be good enough), that's probably something the armed forces are taking care of. Not to mention, the whole process of defending yourself with a nuclear weapon would take WAY too long for it to work as a defense (other than it being a threat, which would assume you had a known location to actually strike). If you need a nuclear weapon to kill animals, it's probably because nature is trying to stop you from using a nuclear weapon by sending a ton of animals to stop you. I think a semi-automatic weapon would be fine. As for bombing things for fun, nuclear bombs are bad for the environment and anyone that manages to not be warned of the threat.

    The difference between a nuclear bomb and a semi-automatic gun is: A nuclear bomb going off WILL affect innocent human lives. Either through death from the explosion, or through global warming among other things. A semi-automatic weapon going off might affect innocent human lives. But a gun is also effective as a defensive measure.
    09-18-2013 10:17 PM
  20. Fairclough's Avatar
    Theoretically. No guns here in the US. A man sits outside the aurora theater. He waits til the movie lets out and runs over 20 people with his truck. Sandy hook lunatic has no access to firearms so he figures out how to make a bomb on the internet. Sets it off in a classroom killing 20. You still have the same amount of death, it just happened a different way. Your gun ban changed only the how. You just don't understand the resolve people have here about their rights. Many people would not simply say ok...here's my gun. It has the potential to be a bad situation in a hurry.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    Actually when you buy the chemicals your put on a watch list and have the Feds coming to your house. E.g. if your buy the chemicals for thermite your flagged.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    09-18-2013 11:51 PM
  21. Fairclough's Avatar
    What is your obsession to rid the USA of guns? What does it bother anyone what I have? Everyone I know with a gun, never used one on someone. If you don't like them, don't buy them. Why are you constantly trying to tell us what we are to do?
    You guys need to unplug from the news and relax. One reason these public murders happen is because the news plasters these asshats faces all over the front page. Do you know the names or faces of any public shooters? I bet you do. Now, can you name or remember any faces of the victims (by memory only)? I bet you can't. The media are blood sucking leaches that will not take 1 shred of responsibility.
    First is a discussion thread,if there was only 1 view there would be no thread. The reason I respond is to hopefully one day to get alteast one to realise society can operate fine without out guns. There is no tyranny, I would love to see how guns keep the government in check... Egypt is a good example -_- the media is not what causes people to lash out, they don't always do it for attention. Weaponry, Luke semi's, allows those who can to lash out affect large quantities of people.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    msndrstood likes this.
    09-18-2013 11:55 PM
  22. Fairclough's Avatar
    Fairclough: You seem to summarily dismiss any fact or statistic from myself and other supporters of the Second amendment as if they don't matter or we just made them up. You refuse to even acknowledge the basic difference between an automatic/select fire weapon and a semiautomatic.

    Yet you expect us to accept every thing you say as the truth and we should all change our core beliefs simply because you "say" that your way is better.
    Select fire is still relatively quick. All our massacres were basically done on them, took them away look. None.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    msndrstood likes this.
    09-18-2013 11:56 PM
  23. Fairclough's Avatar
    FASTSTATS - Injuries

    I'd say about the same amount of people die by cars as they do by guns.


    The difference between a nuclear bomb and a semi-automatic gun is: A nuclear bomb going off WILL affect innocent human lives. Either through death from the explosion, or through global warming among other things. A semi-automatic weapon going off might affect innocent human lives. But a gun is also effective as a defensive measure.
    My post was sarcastic I don't want a bomb. With guns innocent lives are lost shoot! You give a blind man a gun how the hell is he meant to shoot? Theoretically a nuke can reverse the extreme weather conditions from gw. Just an odd fact.


    We do try and reduce road deaths, but funny when it comes to doing any measure to reduce gun deaths a big... That's my right comes up.

    - Android Central App. Remember courage is contagious.
    09-19-2013 12:01 AM
  24. Fairclough's Avatar
    You guys might want to read, I choose the simple ones for you guys one step at a time.
    10 Arguments for Gun Control - Listverse




    Here is some key notes
    Check out our new companion site: KnowledgeNuts
    Theres no doubt about itwe sure do love our guns. Last year, the small arms survey concluded that the United States has 88.9 firearms for every one hundred people. Thats more than Yemen, Mexico, Pakistan, and the West Bank/Gaza combined. Yet theres a heck-load of research out there indicating that a pinch of gun control would keep us safer, and potentially even save our lives. After all:10

    More Guns Equal More Homicides
    Pulp-Fiction-guns-590x350If you compared gun ownership levels with homicide rates, what would you expect to see? Fewer people willing to start a fight when everyone is armed? No correlation at all? Well, not exactly: according to decades of data analyzed by the Harvard School of Public Health, guns and homicides go together like Nicholas Cage and terrible movies.Put simply, if your fellow citizens have easy access to guns, theyre more likely to kill you than if they dont have access. Interestingly, this turned out to be true not just for the twenty-six developed countries analyzed, but on a State-to-State level too. Of course, this doesnt mean that you definitely wont get shot in Massachusettsjust as its entirely possible that youll live ninety years in Arizona and never experience the slightest harassment. But statistically, the trend holds true. And on the subject of statistics

    More Guns Also Equal More Suicides
    Theres a widespread perception that committing suicide is like planning a wedding or something; you sit down, give it a lot of thought, set a date, and get on with it. But study after study indicates that suicide is not so much a rational decision, but something people do on the spur of the momentmeaning that a lack of access to a death-shooting murder-stick at that critical moment could be the difference between life and death.It might sound far-fetched, but look at the evidence: according to this report in the Boston Globe, States with high levels of gun ownership have a suicide rate almost twice as high as those with low ownership levels. Even more worrying, people who committed suicide were found to be seventeen times more likely to live with guns at home than not. Now, you might assume that gun owners or gun owning States are more likely to have mental health issues (for whatever reason), but research shows this isnt true. So you have a bunch of people exactly as miserable as people in other states, but anywhere between two and ten times more likely to end up going the Heming-way.

    Astronee's Astrology Blog - Hippie Puts Flower In GunFor all the claims of politicians that they represent the public, the truth is that they basically dont. For every Mr Smith Goes to Washington type sticking up for the little guy, there are about two hundred others doing their best to trample him into the ground. Case in point: at least fifty-four percent of Americans support very strict gun laws, with that number rising to a whopping ninety-one percent (LINK 6) when it comes to common-sense stuff like required background checks. You may recognize this as the same common-sense policy Congress recently shot down in what can only be assumed was an effort to become even more unpopular. This support for gun control, by the way, is pretty bipartisan: even with controversial stuff like reinstating the assault weapons ban, roughly half of Republicans are in favor, along with a majority of Democrats and Independents. In other words, people are largely pro-gun controlits the politicians who arent.

    Most Massacres Utilize Legal Weapons
    157896405.Jpg.Crop.Rectangle3-LargeBetween 1982 and 2012, the US had roughly sixty-two mass shootings. Thats an astonishing numberbut its not what Im driving at. Instead, this research by Mother Jones (scroll down halfway) shows that, of those sixty-two shootings, forty-nine were perpetrated using legal weapons. And guess what? Half of all mass shooters used assault weapons or high-capacity magazinesmeaning that a few sensible restrictions could have saved a heck-load of lives. While someone really determined to pull off a massacre could do it using a handgun, shotgun or even a musket if they had to, theyd be pretty unlikely to kill anywhere near as many people as they would with, say, an AR-15 assault rifle. So putting controls on the assault rifle has to be a good thing, right?

    Banning Them Saves Lives
    Unlike Congress, the Australian Parliament likes action. In 1996, a mass shooter killed thirty-five people in Port Arthur in a massacre so pointlessly depressing Im not going to mention a single other detail. Two weeks later, the conservative Prime Minister, John Howard, launched perhaps the most aggressive clamp-down on gun ownership in history. Around 650,000 automatic and semi-automatic weapons were destroyed and a whole raft of checks and controls brought in. The end result? The first decade of the law alone saw a fifty-nine percent drop in Australian gun-homicides, while non-firearm-related homicides stayed level. In other words, people didnt switch to machetes or poison so much as they stopped killing altogether. As for mass shootings: well, Australias gone all the way from eleven a decade (1986-96) to zero.

    as Stephen King famously said: if you cant kill an intruder with ten rounds, you need to go back to the shooting range.

    Firing a semi-auto at a piece of cardboard is no more sport than using a bazooka to play pool is leisure.

    The problem with guns is fairly straightforward: they make it easy to kill or injure a person. In Jeffrey A. Roth's Firearms and Violence (NIJ Research in Brief, February 1994, found at http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/guns/gun.viol), he points out the obvious dangers:

    Approximately 60 percent of all murder victims in the United States in 1989 (about 12,000 people) were killed with firearms. According to estimates, firearm attacks injured another 70,000 victims, some of whom were left permanently disabled. In 1985 (the latest year for which data are available), the cost of shootings--either by others, through self-inflicted wounds, or in accidents--was estimated to be more than $14 billion nationwide for medical care, long-term disability, and premature death. (Editor's note: the number of gun victims has increased since 1989 to 15,456 gun homicides in 1994. Source: FBI UCR report.)
    In robberies and assaults, victims are far more likely to die when the perpetrator is armed with a gun than when he or she has another weapon or is unarmed.


    Dr. Roth argues that "Self-defense is commonly cited as a reason to own a gun. This is the explanation given by 20 percent of all gun owners and 40 percent of all handgun owners contacted for a household survey conducted in 1979. (Decision-Making Information, Inc., Attitudes of the American Electorate Toward Gun Control, Santa Ana, California: Decision-Making Information, Inc., 1979).

    But research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.(Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.) The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death(FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48).

    Dr. Roth does cite that there may be some self-defense benefit: victims who defended themselves with guns were less likely to report being injured than those who either defended themselves by other means or took no self-protective measures at all. Thus, while 33 percent of all surviving robbery victims were injured, only 25 percent of those who offered no resistance and 17 percent of those who defended themselves with guns were injured. For surviving assault victims, the corresponding injury rates were, respectively, 30 percent, 27 percent, and 12 percent. (Kleck, Gary, "Crime Control through the Private Use of Armed Force," Social Forces, 35 (1988):1-22.)

    But he goes on to argue that these statistics are "an insufficient basis for the personal decision whether or not to obtain a gun for self-protection.... First, the decision involves a trade-off between the risks of gun accidents and violent victimization. Second, it is not entirely clear that the relatively few robberies and assaults in which victims defended themselves with guns are typical of these types of crimes and that the lower injury rates resulted from the self-defense action rather than some other factor. Perhaps offenders lost the advantage of surprise, which allowed victims not only to deploy their guns but also to take other evasive action."

    Research by Dr. Arthur Kellerman has shown that keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one. That is, excluding many other factors such as previous history of violence, class, race, etc., a household with a gun is 2.7 times more likely to experience a murder than a household without one, even while there was no significant increase in the risk of non-gun homicides!

    This study (Arthur Kellermann et. al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," The New England Journal of Medicine, October 7, 1993, pp. 1084-1091) has been much maligned by the gun lobby, but despite repeated efforts to tar it as non-scientific, its publication in one of the most respected peer-reviewed journals in the world is just one indiciation of its soundness. For a complete and vigorous defense of the study, please see this essay by Steve Kangas.

    Obviously, there is a problem with criminals having access to guns, which is why so many people feel they, too, need a gun for self-defense. But this is a vicious cycle: FBI Crime Reports sources indicate that there are about 340,000 reported firearms thefts every year. Those guns, the overwhelming amount of which were originally manufactured and purchased legally, and now in the hands of criminals. Thus, the old credo "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is silly. What happens is many guns bought legally are sold or stolen, and can then be used for crime. If those 340,000 guns were never sold or owned in the first place, that would be 340,000 less guns in the hands of criminals every year. Part of the reason there are so many guns on the street in the hands of criminals is precisely because so many are sold legally. Certainly, there will always be a way to obtain a gun illegally. But if obtaining a gun legally is extremely difficult, the price of illegal guns goes way up, and availability goes way down. Thus, it is much more difficult for criminals to obtain guns.

    Other weapons kill
    eople kill with knifes, too. Do you want to ban knifes?" From Dr. Roth's study: The overall fatality rate in gun robberies is an estimated 4 per 1,000--about 3 times the rate for knife robberies, 10 times the rate for robberies with other weapons, and 20 times the rate for robberies by unarmed offenders. (Cook, Philip J., "Robbery Violence," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 78-2, (1987):357-376.) For assaults, a crime which includes threats, the most widely cited estimate of the fatality rate is derived from a 1968 analysis of assaults and homicides committed in Chicago. The study, prepared for the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, reported that gun attacks kill 12.2 percent of their intended victims. This is about 5 times as often as in attacks with knives, the second most deadly weapon used in violent crimes.(Newton, G.D., and F.E. Zimring, Firearms and Violence in American Life: A Staff Report Submitted to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, Washington, D.C.: National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, 1969.) With one exception, more recent studies have generally concluded that death was at least twice as likely in gun assaults as in knife assaults. (The exception is Kleck and McElrath, "The Effects of Weaponry on Human Violence.")

    An offshoot of this argument is the old classic "cars kill more people than guns, but we don't ban cars." The response to this irrelevant argument is that cars have other usage, whereas guns basically just kill, or threaten to kill. Their one potentially valid use, self-defense, is undercut by the statistics by Kellerman and Zimring previously cited, as well as fatal weaknesses in the arguments of Lott and Kleck.

    COMMON ANTI-GUN DEBATES YOU GUYS USE
    1. Gun control doesnt work.

    Anyone who knows how to use Google can disprove this argument. Its common knowledge that the states with the most stringent gun control policies hold lower rates of gun violence than states with the least control. Look at Australia: In the aftermath of a mass shooting in 1996, Australia enacted sweeping gun control, including an assault weapons ban and increased background checks. How many mass shootings have occurred since then? You got it. 0.

    2. Gun control wont prevent another Sandy Hook.

    This argument makes absolutely no sense. The point of gun control laws is to threaten would-be criminals with penalties if they so choose to break the law. If we dont enact laws simply because they wont prevent heinous acts from continuing, why do we have laws against murder? Rape? Theft? The law is used to create a disincentive for potential criminals who would otherwise commit the acts laws seek to prohibit and punish.

    3. Gun control infringes on our rights.

    Okay, so youre citing the Second Amendment, which was made for the sole purpose of preventing a tyrannical government from overtaking the people. This amendment was included in the Constitution under the pretense that, if the people so chose, they could overthrow the government with their guns and reinstate new leaders. This amendment was added when arms meant rifles that took 40 seconds to reload, and accuracy didnt exist. Im also afraid to say that under todays government with the nuclear power and military that government possesses our rifles and pistols dont stand a chance. Not to mention the thought of the government becoming a tyrant is a faded memory of the Founding Fathers generation. If we hold this amendment to be all-powerful, then we should also give equal weight to the amendment following it: Soldiers cannot be quartered in your homes. Im sure we all struggle with that problem day to day.

    4. Guns dont kill people; people kill people.


    Yes, so weve concluded that people kill people. But how people kill others is what matters. Theres a reason we cant go to the nearest department store and buy a nuclear weapon. Irresponsible or crooked individuals exist in our society, and we have to accept that fact. The only sound way to prevent these individuals from owning weapons of destruction is to get those weapons out of the hands of the general public. I mean, what happens if someone crazy doesnt have access to a gun and uses something else instead? On the same day of the Sandy Hook massacre, a mentally ill Chinese man ran into an elementary school classroom and stabbed more than 20 children with a knife. None were killed.

    5. Gun control will take my guns away from me.

    If youre mentally ill or a convicted criminal, then maybe you wont be able to buy a gun. There is absolutely no legislation being considered that would take guns away from anyone. The most radical gun legislation ever considered in the United States is the assault weapons ban a ban on further sales of weapons that would in no way take away any guns already on the street.

    6. Cars kill people too; why dont we regulate them?

    We do. Last I checked, you need a drivers license to drive a car. You must register your car. You must have insurance. You must wear a seat belt. You cannot talk on the phone while driving (here in California, at least).The list goes on. You know the regulations for gun ownership? Me neither. Thats because there are basically none other than a simple background check and a mandatory waiting period.

    7. Look, heres someone who used a firearm for self-defense against a criminal and couldve been hurt if he or she didnt have the gun.

    Look, heres a list of 30,000 Americans killed by gun violence per year. Children, elderly, and most of the time innocent people you name it. You decide what you value more: a single crime being prevented or the 30,000 stories behind the deaths of these Americans. (Not to imply that gun control would prevent people from self-defense I prefer bear spray and a taser over a gun any day).

    These are only few of the many incredulous arguments that reverberate through the halls of your Congress today. For each day we hold off of gun control, more than 85 Americans a day are killed by gun violence. If the recent defeat of the Manchin-Toomey gun control proposal (the background-check expansion that had approximately 93 percent public approval but still failed) is an indicator of anything, it is that the NRA has taken our legislators hostage.

    The nonsense needs to stop, and were the ones who need to stop it. In the words of legendary President Ronald Reagan himself, Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped.
    msndrstood and festinator like this.
    09-19-2013 12:28 AM
  25. festinator's Avatar
    Longest post I have ever seen on these forums

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using AC Forums mobile app
    qxr likes this.
    09-19-2013 12:51 AM
4,617 ... 135136137138139 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD