![]() |
The Truth about Gun Control
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...gs-in-america/
Some interesting reading which may shed light on why "guns now a problem?" |
|
Quote:
|
The anology of closing the barn door after the cows left comes to mind
|
emotional basket cases being allowed to vote is the problem
|
that would make sense except for the facts being omitted.
|
"suddenly guns are a problem" the logic there makes no sense.
maybe people are doing more messed up shit that it's a are serious issue. |
Guns have always been a concern in the USA. That's why they were addressed in our Constitution and why we have umpteen gun laws and SC decisions and so on and so forth.
Nothing about guns in America is all the sudden. |
The point to take away from the chart is we can see every time some sort of decree is passed by our rulers, violence gets worse.
|
Quote:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNXr37YWoAALg1T.png |
Quote:
|
more americans die in america from domestic shootings than they did in war since ww2, this would be normal for every other country but america is non stop at war like all the mother fucking time...
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
most people are not killed by assault style weapons but most all, like 90+% all of mass shooters kill with assault style weapons so yes, i think a policy re: assault style weapons would go towards solving several problems: 1. curbing mass shootings 2. curbing media sensationalism of mass shootings and shooters that distracts from addressing other gun problems. 3. being able to then address other gun problems |
Everyone knows gun control won't work because murder is already illegal.
Quote:
|
Quote:
No one want's to take away all your guns. The people who are pro-control want to limit the killing power of the weapons you can own and the number of weapons. If you want to go hunting, a single-shot is fine for everything but birds, in which case a double barrelled shotgun is fine. If you want to defend yourself a six-shooter is more than adequate. The odds of you coming out on top in that fight are long. Also how weapons are kept is an issue. There are so many needless deaths where instead of punches being thrown, someone gets shot. And then children who have shot people. These are the times we read about. How many times has a child fired a gun and not hit anyone? |
Quote:
Or maybe you do. |
Quote:
1. breaks the law 2. puts driver at much higher risk of death 3. significantly increases the risk for everyone else on the road 4. causes more deaths each year than all mass shootings ever combined So obviously, the max speed on cars should be limited to 65mph (or whatever the max speed limit is in your country)... right? |
Murder with guns is pretty much the only thing that America can claim being number one anymore so nothing will be done.
Sorry but for national pride we must strive to keep those numbers growing. |
Quote:
So the only possible advantage is that the mass shootings would be slightly less lethal... which is obviously a good outcome, but I don't see how focusing on saving perhaps 10-20 lives per year is smart, as there are ways to save way more lives with way less political friction than this... |
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdn...95-730x488.jpg This weapon used was created for the US Special Forces. How in the world do we justify handing out this out to civilians? The ONLY people who need this would be the military. It's not that it looks scary - it's deadly. This is a weapon designed to kill people. Gun Review: SIG SAUER MCX - The Truth About Guns I honestly don't care. Statistics tell me I am most likely die falling down the stairs in my house. I have a higher chance of being electrocuted in my tub than I do being the victim of a mass shooting (and I don't take baths). I own assault rifles myself. I just don't see the need why anyone would need something like this. |
Quote:
And you're free not to see that mass shootings are a big problem. |
Quote:
is it really any different from an owner of a 800hp supercar that goes from 0-60 in 2 seconds and reaches 200mph? Does he "need" a car like that? Isn't it likely (I mean actually 100% certain) that he will drive it recklessly putting everyone at risk? |
Quote:
|
|
Quote:
also way off base to exclaim "no one wants to take away your guns" when in fact there are plenty of people who advocate that. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Australia changed it's gun laws in 1996 with the primary intention of limiting mass shootings. The result, no mass shootings in 20 years. Organized criminals still have guns in Australia but they tend to shoot other criminals. Criminals robing convenience stores or houses do use knives now instead of guns, but a bad guy with a knife is no match for a good guy with a baseball bat. An important point about the Australian law changes is that it took a conservative government to say 'enough is enough.' |
Quote:
Yes limiting the power of cars is sensible. Again how many lives is it worth to own a car that is pointless? Of course, if you can give us a valid reason for overpowered cars or guns, we can debate that. This goes for any moron who thinks an overpowered car or gun makes them special. |
Quote:
likewise the purpose of a gun is not to "kill a person", but it's to defend oneself... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Bunch of idiots getting caught up in the way something looks. |
Quote:
"left" thinks they know best and that it's government's job to tell people how to live their lives, their justification is that it's for the greater good, to save lives, etc... so they do that by restricting people's rights/freedoms, by redistributing people's hard earned $$ to social programs, etc... "right" is opposed to policies like that, "right" believes that each person knows best how to live their own lives and so they should be the ones making the decisions not some corrupted politician... |
I'll give you all the philosophical grounding from which we should be able to own any type of gun we fucking want.
1. (a) You own your body and (b) property you've gained via original appropriation or voluntary exchange. 2. In regards to (a), this is irrefutable, even if you assert that you do not own your body. The act of using your body to communicate that you don't own it, is a performative contradiction. Each of us owns our body, and (b) property. 3. With property rights established above, the non-aggression axiom is validated. The non-aggression axiom is the recognition that it's wrong to initiate or threaten the initiation of force against a person or their property. ^- Points 1, 2 and 3 therefore legitamize owning anything as long as it does not break #3 from above (The non-aggression axiom, sometimes referred to as the NAP [non-aggression principle]) -- because the act of simply owning an object, is not a violation of the NAP. This is why any "crimes" that are based on victimless activities are null. Whether it's owning weapons, using or selling drugs, prostitution; it's all victimless and therefore should be permissible. The point at which a person threatens or initiates force against someone, they've broken the NAP and action should be taken against them. So again. (a) A person owns a gun. (b) A person owns a gun and threatens or uses it to injure someone. (a) is okay. (b) is not. I understand most of you have undergone 13+ years of government indoctrination centers as youngsters, and have watched enough mainstream mind-numbing media that it can make this type of logic difficult to process. But for christ's sake, it's time to put our big boy pants on. |
Quote:
It's about the Arms Industry profits and share prices. You know that and so does everyone else. How much does it cost for a Right Wing politician to get elected? So they can block any move that makes guns less deadly and the arms industry bosses richer? |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:30 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123