Should Gun Ownership Be Mandatory?

[WISD0MTREE]

Guns were actually involved in the Oklahoma City bombing.

They robbed a guy of almost everything he had, including guns, but they weren't an actual part of the bombing. 

 

Pray tell, what "vital part" in my stats did I miss?

The part where you assumed that police stopped the remaining % of shootings. 

 

First I said the first part was a joke .

 

Second If u think a grandma with an AK 47 can defend herself from a group of robber u are wrong.

 

What if it was a kid in grannie's place , will kid have a gun or not?If so what if shots himself by accident.

 

Third how can a gun stop a terrorist or other tipes of bombings ,its literary almost impossible. How can a gun stop a Van from mowing a crowd even if u shoot the driver the van still carries on murdering people until it has no speed left,that would take some time.

 

Forth how do know that if everyone owns a gun as you would like it to be, they won't simply reign in anarchy cuz they know they simply can't be stoped by the police,they can do what they want, they would join a pack and rule in anarchy.How do you they won't start a coup with snipers and Kalashnikovs.Let me tell you what would likely happen if you give everyone guns:

White Racist(Black racist)man shoots black man.

The news talk all about it.

Black man shoots white man avenging the black man that died.

A group of white men grow tired of the situation and arm up in the hope of mass shooting a group of black men, and they do.

A group of Black men also grow tired of the situation and also arm up in hope to confront the group of white men, with their newly bought guns.

Congrats you just started a civil war.

Ok. 

 

Well, the Department of Homeland Security disagrees with you. The Department has a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm. It's what you would call an “assault weapon†because it’s, and I quote, “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.†The only differences are that they call it a “personal defense weapon†instead of the made-up term “assault weapon,†and their version gets to shoot multiple shots per trigger pull, unlike anything available to U.S citizens. 

Also, there are other weapons than rifles. 

http://www.gunbroker.com/item/581183210

http://www.gunbroker.com/item/579932899

Back when she was alive, my grandma carried this. 

http://www.ruger.com/products/lcp/models.html

 

I doubt she would let a kid have her gun. It really depends on the child, though. I walked around my grandma's land with a shotgun for snakes at 8 years old. If she doesn't trust the kids with her gun, she will probably: 

-hide it 

-keep it with her 

-use a cable lock 

-use a safe 

-use one of these (really cool idea) 

 

When did I ever say that you could? Terrorists will always find a way. However, you can stop a guy with a gun if you have a gun. Just Google and you’ll find them. Here’s one recent one: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/doctor-2-shot-pennsylvania-hospital-article-1.1879032

You are forgetting a terribly important aspect of concealed carry: deterrence. There are countless times when a would-be attacker was fended off simply when the victim drew--not fired--the weapon. A gun doesn’t need to be fired in order to be a successful used for self-defense.

 

This has to be one of the most stupid things I've read. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act

Unless majority of the country is overthrowing the government, it's not happening. However, if majority of the people were on the same page, we would be justified in doing so according to our Founding Fathers. (Spoiler tags for mobile users. Large image.)

 

 

 

 

 

If you like getting shot at, go to an unstable third world country and enjoy the guns - globalisation has made that an option. As long as you have discernible skills, you can live just about anywhere.

Owning a firearm is my birthright as an American. It, along with other rights articulated in the Constitution, is what makes me an American. Feel free to stay in Turkey. By the way, how was your attempted coup? I've been meaning to ask you that for a while. Edited September 5, 2016 by WISD0MTREE

[Kemal Ergenekon]

You know, now that you mention it I have thought about moving to turkey.

 

Funny that I don't live there. So much for your assumption.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

The part where you assumed that police stopped the remaining % of shootings. 

 

I copy-pasted the sentence straight from the same report you linked, so there is no assumption, just fact. You're funny.

 

 

Owning a firearm is my birthright as an American. It, along with other rights articulated in the Constitution, is what makes me an American. Feel free to stay in Turkey. By the way, how was your attempted coup? I've been meaning to ask you that for a while.

 

You have no such birthright. You only have the rights the state gives you. You do not have the right to possess any firearm you want or use them as you like. You can only have a firearm while obeying the rules the state sets. The state can change the rules at any time, as necessary.

 

What made you think I live in Turkey instead of the US? Do all the foreign sounding name people live outside the US? Fool.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Kemal Ergenekon

[Milord]

They robbed a guy of almost everything he had, including guns, but they weren't an actual part of the bombing.  The part where you assumed that police stopped the remaining % of shootings.  Ok.  Well, the Department of Homeland Security disagrees with you. The Department has a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm. It's what you would call an “assault weapon†because it’s, and I quote, “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.†The only differences are that they call it a “personal defense weapon†instead of the made-up term “assault weapon,†and their version gets to shoot multiple shots per trigger pull, unlike anything available to U.S citizens. Also, there are other weapons than rifles. http://www.gunbroker.com/item/581183210http://www.gunbroker.com/item/579932899Back when she was alive, my grandma carried this. http://www.ruger.com/products/lcp/models.html I doubt she would let a kid have her gun. It really depends on the child, though. I walked around my grandma's land with a shotgun for snakes at 8 years old. If she doesn't trust the kids with her gun, she will probably: -hide it -keep it with her -use a cable lock -use a safe -use one of these (really cool idea)  When did I ever say that you could? Terrorists will always find a way. However, you can stop a guy with a gun if you have a gun. Just Google and you’ll find them. Here’s one recent one: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/doctor-2-shot-pennsylvania-hospital-article-1.1879032You are forgetting a terribly important aspect of concealed carry: deterrence. There are countless times when a would-be attacker was fended off simply when the victim drew--not fired--the weapon. A gun doesn’t need to be fired in order to be a successful used for self-defense. This has to be one of the most stupid things I've read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_ActUnless majority of the country is overthrowing the government, it's not happening. However, if majority of the people were on the same page, we would be justified in doing so according to our Founding Fathers. (Spoiler tags for mobile users. Large image.)

 Owning a firearm is my birthright as an American. It, along with other rights articulated in the Constitution, is what makes me an American. Feel free to stay in Turkey. By the way, how was your attempted coup? I've been meaning to ask you that for a while.

We all know that NATO is controlled by the US ,so NATO allowing it its basically US talking to a mirror.

Some of your points are correct, (relatively cuz situations change, the safety for kids looks reasonably, but what happens if the kid goes mad,or wants revenge ,and starts killing other kids with his "american birthright" , and kids with there "american birthright" defend themselves, so a firefight starts and its a "american deathright".

I wasn't talking about the US in specific, I was talking about The world , I ignored the D.T op because it looked a bate for a presidential debate, and krystof talking about Australia, I thought this was a global thing.

Anyway a rise up could still happen,if we are talking global.

And as I said a constitution from 1700 needs to be updated,if some countries still had the constitution from 1700 they would probably kill Jews, as its there" birthright"( no religious freedom).And according to your Constitution you can also own people,And in the 1700 the guns were basically muskets and crap compared to Automatic Guns that exist today.

[WISD0MTREE]

I copy-pasted the sentence straight from the same report you linked, so there is no assumption, just fact. You're funny.

 

You have no such birthright. You only have the rights the state gives you. You do not have the right to possess any firearm you want or use them as you like. You can only have a firearm while obeying the rules the state sets. The state can change the rules at any time, as necessary.

 

What made you think I live in Turkey instead of the US? Do all the foreign sounding name people live outside the US? Fool.

Page 12: "21 of the 45 incidents (46.7%) required law enforcement to engage the shooter." 

 

Fourteenth Amendment: 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Article 6 Clause 2 of the Constitution: 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Legitimately my birthright. 

 

I could've sworn you said in another thread that you lived in Turkey. 

 

We all know that NATO is controlled by the US ,so NATO allowing it its basically US talking to a mirror.

Some of your points are correct,

 

(relatively cuz situations change, the safety for kids looks reasonably, but what happens if the kid goes mad,or wants revenge ,and starts killing other kids with his "american birthright" , and kids with there "american birthright" defend themselves, so a firefight starts and its a "american deathright".

I wasn't talking about the US in specific, I was talking about The world , I ignored the D.T op because it looked a bate for a presidential debate, and krystof talking about Australia, I thought this was a global thing.

Anyway a rise up could still happen,if we are talking global.

And as I said a constitution from 1700 needs to be updated,if some countries still had the constitution from 1700 they would probably kill Jews, as its there" birthright"( no religious freedom).

 

And according to your Constitution you can also own people,

 

And in the 1700 the guns were basically muskets and crap compared to Automatic Guns that exist today.

NATO is the name of the caliber, not referencing the actual alliance. It was designed for NATO use, which is where it gets its name from, but nowhere in there did I say that NATO allows x. 

 

Thank you. 

 

There is already a law against murder. That doesn’t seem to be stopping the killing. What makes you think a law against guns will make all 320,000,000+ guns disappear? 

 

Ok. 

 

Yes, but is that necessarily a bad thing if they are oppressed? Shouldn't the people be able overthrow their government if they are being oppressed? As Goebbels said after the Jewish Warsaw revolt in World War II: “This just shows what you can expect from Jews if they lay hands on weapons."

Really, well-armed citizenry is deterrent enough in itself. Check out what happened at the Bundy ranch (whether or not you think they were on the right side of the law, the point still holds). The government will think twice before engaging in tyrannical acts if its opponents are well armed, not wishing to further provoke a bloody mass uprising. The threat of rebellion is itself a deterrent. Our guns are quashing tyranny even as they lie unused. 

 

Does ours? I must've missed that part. 

 

That's what Amendments are for. When an Amendment is ratified, it becomes part of the Constitution. So the absolute original Constitution did allow that, but now it doesn't. Now every American citizen is allowed to vote according to our updated Constitution. 

 

 

Does that apply to the 1st Amendment too? Do you still write with a quill pen? Obviously not if you are posting here. 

[Milord]

Page 12: "21 of the 45 incidents (46.7%) required law enforcement to engage the shooter."

 

Fourteenth Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Article 6 Clause 2 of the Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Legitimately my birthright.

 

I could've sworn you said in another thread that you lived in Turkey.

 

 

NATO is the name of the caliber, not referencing the actual alliance. It was designed for NATO use, which is where it gets its name from, but nowhere in there did I say that NATO allows x.

 

Thank you.

 

There is already a law against murder. That doesn’t seem to be stopping the killing. What makes you think a law against guns will make all 320,000,000+ guns disappear?

 

Ok.

 

Yes, but is that necessarily a bad thing if they are oppressed? Shouldn't the people be able overthrow their government if they are being oppressed? As Goebbels said after the Jewish Warsaw revolt in World War II: “This just shows what you can expect from Jews if they lay hands on weapons."

Really, well-armed citizenry is deterrent enough in itself. Check out what happened at the Bundy ranch (whether or not you think they were on the right side of the law, the point still holds). The government will think twice before engaging in tyrannical acts if its opponents are well armed, not wishing to further provoke a bloody mass uprising. The threat of rebellion is itself a deterrent. Our guns are quashing tyranny even as they lie unused.

 

Does ours? I must've missed that part.

 

That's what Amendments are for. When an Amendment is ratified, it becomes part of the Constitution. So the absolute original Constitution did allow that, but now it doesn't. Now every American citizen is allowed to vote according to our updated Constitution.

 

 

Does that apply to the 1st Amendment too? Do you still write with a quill pen? Obviously not if you are posting here.

[/quote/]

English is not my first language so I am trying my hardest to understand you, don't be a prick about it pls.

Anyway I don't know why I am fighting you its not even my country,(IF U WANT TO DISCUSS THIS GLOBALLY CALL ME) if u want everyone with a gun well be advised that nothing goes as plan especially with humanity.

When US is full of gun I will watch carefully to see what happens and then we will know who is right.

Goodbye have fun.... with guns or whatever....

Edited September 5, 2016 by Milord

[WISD0MTREE]

English is not my first language so I am trying my hardest to understand you, don't be a prick about it pls.

Anyway I don't know why I am fighting you its not even my country,(IF U WANT TO DISCUSS THIS GLOBALLY CALL ME) if u want everyone with a gun well be advised that nothing goes as plan especially with humanity.

When US is full of gun I will watch carefully to see what happens and then we will know who is right.

Goodbye have fun.... with guns or whatever....

Sorry if I came off as offensive. That wasn't my intent. 

 

Alright, cool. I hope you have a nice day. 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Page 12: "21 of the 45 incidents (46.7%) required law enforcement to engage the shooter." 

 

Fourteenth Amendment: 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Article 6 Clause 2 of the Constitution: 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Legitimately my birthright. 

 

I could've sworn you said in another thread that you lived in Turkey. 

 

So where does it say the law enforcement personnel didn't end the shooting? You are throwing in some additional quirk, but your methodology allows for none. Your methodology takes the number, and divides it by the population of the subgroup in the entire US. Hence you cannot modify it in this particular case. That's one of the many reasons why your method is shitty.

[WISD0MTREE]

So where does it say the law enforcement personnel didn't end the shooting?

Page 12: "21 of the 45 incidents (46.7%) required law enforcement to engage the shooter."

Kemal, please start actually posting arguments.

Edited September 5, 2016 by WISD0MTREE

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Kemal, please start actually posting arguments.

 

Are you unable to read? The report breaks by percentages who intervened to stop the shooting. Law enforcement personnel did so 46.7% of the time.

[Doktor Avalanche]

To the OP:

Just the same as enforcing bad policy upon others, like forcing religion down someone's throat, so is forcing others who wish to not own a gun is just as wrong.

I have no problem owning one, but I will never force others to do so especially using the enforcement of law. It should remain a choice.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Lo Pan

[WISD0MTREE]

Are you unable to read? The report breaks by percentages who intervened to stop the shooting. Law enforcement personnel did so 46.7% of the time.

That's exactly what I've been saying the entire time. Your numbers used 100% - unarmed - armed = police

[Kemal Ergenekon]

That's exactly what I've been saying the entire time. Your numbers used 100% - unarmed - armed = police

 

You are clearly incapable of reading. This is what the report says, and it is not an assumption. It is a classification. There is a further breakdown of what that percentage is if you actually read the report. But you cannot, You only know how to shitpost out of your ass.

 

 

"In 45 (28.1%) of the 160 incidents, law enforcement and the shooter exchanged gunfire. Of

those 45 incidents, the shooter was killed at the scene in 21, killed at another location in 4,

wounded in 9, committed suicide in 9, and surrendered in 2."

 

No subtracting shit from nothing, it is a fact. 21 + 4 + 9 + 9 + 2 = 45

 

45/160 = 28.1%

 

The number is correct. You are wrong. 

[WISD0MTREE]

-snip-

Ok, that's all you had to post instead of 2 pages of back and forth arguing. I legitimately posted that number and all you had to do was say that you used it.

 

Back on topic, you are arguing for people to be only 15% as effective as they could be against shooters.

-snip-

- 3.5% of the population stopped 3.1% of all shootings. 3.1/3.5 = 0.89

- 0.3% of the population stopped 28.1% of all shootings. 28.1/0.3 = 93.7

-snip-

3.5% of the population stopped 3.1% of all shootings. 

96.3% of the population stopped 13.1% of all shootings.

13.1/96.3=0.136

0.136/0.89 = 0.15280898876

 

Actually, you are really wanting people to only be 1.536% as effective. I forgot to count gun-free zones into my initial calculations. So we could've stopped as many as 59.1% of all shootings before police arrived, but you want to keep that number at 13.1%?

-3.5% of the population stopped 3.1% of all shootings when limited to 10% of the country. 31/3.5 = 8.85

0.136/8.85=0.01536723

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Ok, that's all you had to post instead of 2 pages of back and forth arguing. 

 

I told you that it was on the same report. Is it my fault that after telling you it is in the report that you didn't bother looking at the same page you took numbers from?

 

The rest of your post is garbage. I am not saying anything about making people more or less effective. I am saying that the police are 105 times more effective than "good guys with guns" using your (faulty) methodology. Now you have to either admit that "good guys with guns" are complete utter rubbish in comparison to law enforcement personnel, or that your methodology is wrong (protip: the answer is the latter).

[WISD0MTREE]

The rest of your post is garbage. I am not saying anything about making people more or less effective. I am saying that the police are 105 times more effective than "good guys with guns" using your (faulty) methodology. Now you have to either admit that "good guys with guns" are complete utter rubbish in comparison to law enforcement personnel, or that your methodology is wrong (protip: the answer is the latter).

The latter. I just used my updated method in my last post, which proves that "good guys with guns" exist. Even though the good guy with a gun myth actually stopped 3% while being limited to 10% of the country, by definition, a would-be mass shooter who is stopped before he can commit his act does not perform a mass shooting. Asking how many mass shooters have been stopped by armed civilians is like asking how many candles would've burned into house fires if they hadn't been blown out. 

That said, here are some occasions when an armed civilian stopped what probably would have turned into a mass shooting:

-Conyers, Ga., May 31, 2015: A permit holder was walking by a store when he heard shots ring out. Two people were killed. The permit holder started firing, and the killer ran out of the store. --Rockdale County Sheriff Eric Levett said: “I believe that if Mr. Scott did not return fire at the suspect, then more of those customers would have [been] hit by a gun[shot] . . . . So, in my opinion he saved other lives in that store.â€

-Chicago, April 2015: An Uber driver who had just dropped off a fare “shot and wounded a gunman [Everardo Custodio] who opened fire on a crowd of people.†Assistant State’s Attorney Barry Quinn praised the driver for “acting in self-defense and in the defense of others.â€

-Philadelphia, Pa., March 2015: A permit holder was walking by a barber shop when he heard shots fired. He quickly ran into the shop and shot the gunman to death. Police Captain Frank Llewellyn said, “I guess he saved a lot of people in there.â€

-Darby, Pa., July 2014: Convicted felon Richard Plotts killed a hospital caseworker and shot the psychiatrist that he was scheduled to meet with. Fortunately, the psychiatrist was a concealed-handgun permit holder and was able to critically wound Plotts. Plotts was still carrying 39 bullets and could have shot many other people.

-Chicago, July 2014: Three gang members fired on four people who had just left a party. Fortunately, one of these four was a military serviceman with a concealed-handgun permit. He was able to return fire and wound the main attacker while keeping the others at bay. The UK’s Daily Mail reported, “The night might have had a very different outcome had the incident occurred a year earlier [before Illinois’s concealed-handgun law was passed].â€

-Plymouth, Pa., September 2012: William Allabaugh critically wounded one man inside a restaurant and murdered a second man on the street outside. Luzerne County Assistant District Attorney Jarrett Ferentino said that without the concealed-handgun permit holder who wounded Allabaugh, “we believe that it could have been much worse that night.â€

-Spartanburg, S.C., March 2012: Armed with a shotgun, Jesse Gates kicked in a door to his church. Concealed-carry permit holder Aaron Guyton drew his gun and held Gates at gunpoint, enabling other parishioners to disarm Gates. Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright called the churchgoers heroes. Though Gates was stopped before anyone was harmed, he was still charged with one count of kidnapping and three counts of pointing and presenting a firearm. 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

You did a mistake

 

0.136/0.89 = 0.15280898876 = 15.3%, not 1.53%

 

You cannot add any special circumstances to your analysis, because it violates even the shoddy methodology you established.

 

Let me give you some idea on how you should have done the analysis:

 

First, you need to know how many guys with guns *attempted* to stop the shootings and divide the *successful attempts* by that number. That gives you the effectiveness of a guy with a gun.

 

Then you need to know how many guys without guns attempted to stop the shootings and divide the successful attempts by that number. That gives you the effectiveness of a guy without a gun.

 

I would not be surprised if the guy with a gun is more effective. It is only logical. The question is the magnitude.

 

Then you need to model the decision to intervene or not by an individual based on their characteristics. You need a list of people who were present in each shooting case, with necessary variables, and then model their decision to intervene. Some lucky guesses: Probably more 18-65 aged men intervened than women or the elderly. And you will also find out that this particular group is much more likely to own and carry a gun compared to the rest of the population. Hence the stupidity of dividing by the total population in your method.

 

Once you modeled these, you can go one step further and add some interaction, as in whether the presence of a guy with a gun affects the decision of guys without guns not to intervene. I mean, if there is a guy with a gun who can stop the shooter, I might decide against intervening myself since he has a better chance than an unarmed person. But let's not get lost in the details.

 

After you do all of these, you need some theory on how to model whether the police arrive in time or not if someone who could have prevented a shooter could not because he did not have a gun.

 

----------------

 

Now comes the killer part: We still did not make the NUMBER of shootings endogenously determined. What is the elasticity of the number of shooting cases to people having guns? That's the whole argument of the anti-gun people like myself. Having a gun might give an individual a higher chance to stop a shooter before the police arrive (it also carries the risk of !@#$ing things up more by shooting the wrong people, or making the shooter shoot more people in fear, but I am in a good mood, so we will ignore those). HOWEVER, if lowering the number of guns reduces the number of shootings (GASP!) the negligible loss in effectiveness is more than made up by the fact that, some potential shootings don't freaking exist anymore.

[WISD0MTREE]

-snip-

 

Now comes the killer part: We still did not make the NUMBER of shootings endogenously determined. What is the elasticity of the number of shooting cases to people having guns? That's the whole argument of the anti-gun people like myself. Having a gun might give an individual a higher chance to stop a shooter before the police arrive (it also carries the risk of !@#$ things up more by shooting the wrong people, or making the shooter shoot more people in fear, but I am in a good mood, so we will ignore those). HOWEVER, if lowering the number of guns reduces the number of shootings (GASP!) the negligible loss in effectiveness is more than made up by the fact that, some potential shootings don't freaking exist anymore.

Alright, cool. 

 

For every one mass shooter, there are millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners who will never do anything slightly illegal or nefarious with their guns. Whatever solution you come up with, you’ll have to find a way that doesn’t infringe on their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. After every Islamic attack, politicians tell us Islam is not to blame. On the other hand, after every attack with a gun, us gun owners are to blame. Why the double standard? 

[Jakeman4]

Alright, cool. 

 

For every one mass shooter, there are millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners who will never do anything slightly illegal or nefarious with their guns. Whatever solution you come up with, you’ll have to find a way that doesn’t infringe on their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. After every Islamic attack, politicians tell us Islam is not to blame. On the other hand, after every attack with a gun, us gun owners are to blame. Why the double standard? 

Stop being silly wisdomtree, we all know that our Great Leaders are incapable of double standards and hypocrisy.....   

 

/sarc

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Alright, cool. 

 

For every one mass shooter, there are millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners who will never do anything slightly illegal or nefarious with their guns. Whatever solution you come up with, you’ll have to find a way that doesn’t infringe on their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. After every Islamic attack, politicians tell us Islam is not to blame. On the other hand, after every attack with a gun, us gun owners are to blame. Why the double standard? 

 

We disagree -- the Amendment is open to interpretation, and can theoretically be changed.

 

No double standards: Guns provide people with the capability to kill other people. Responsible people who like to use guns for recreation and hunting can still have access to firearms in a more regulated environment. Having firmer gun laws would reduce firearm-induced violence, yet still give the gun enthusiasts ways to enjoy firearms with more regulations.

 

I personally value the lives of thousands of people who die due to gun violence above your recreation and enjoyment of easy-to-access firearms. One is survival, the other is recreation.

[WISD0MTREE]

We disagree -- the Amendment is open to interpretation,

 

and can theoretically be changed.

 

No double standards: Guns provide people with the capability to kill other people.

 

Responsible people who like to use guns for recreation and hunting can still have access to firearms in a more regulated environment.

 

Having firmer gun laws would reduce firearm-induced violence, yet still give the gun enthusiasts ways to enjoy firearms with more regulations.

 

I personally value the lives of thousands of people who die due to gun violence above your recreation and enjoyment of easy-to-access firearms. One is survival, the other is recreation.

Ok. How do you interpret it? 

 

Theoretically, yes. And the 21st can be repealed, effectively enacting the 18th. We all know how well that worked out. 

 

As posted earlier ITT, a psycho doesn’t really need guns to kill people in large numbers. The Oklahoma City bomber used a homemade fertilizer bomb. The 9-11 killers used boxcutters and jets. The Happy Land murder only used gasoline and a lighter to take out 87 people. The 2015 Las Vegas car murderer used a car to drive up onto the sidewalk on the Strip, mowing people down. It’s unhelpful and dangerous to focus too narrowly just on the tool used (gun, bomb, gas) and overlook or downplay the primary problem in these situation, which is the murderer.

 

What exactly do you have in mind? “Regulated†could mean a lot of things. Every time a gun control supporter gives specifics about what they mean by that exactly, it turns out to be an idea that is anything but ways to stop a shooter. 

 

Just so we are on the same page, you are implying that if a criminal can't get a firearm, they won't commit the crime with a different weapon? If not, you should look at criminal violence in general. On that note, European nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. For example, Russia, where only 3 in 100 people own a gun, has a murder rate of about 20 people per 100,000, whereas Finland, where 39 in 100 own guns, has a murder rate of only 2 per 100,000.

In 2004, The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. The panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns. The panel was established during the Clinton administration and all but one of its members were known to favor gun control. 

http://www.wnd.com/2004/12/28253/

 

Who said I liked guns for only recreation? They are also viable for defense purposes. The Center for Disease Control, in a 2013 study commissioned by President Obama, estimated that defensive gun uses number between several hundred thousand and several million per year in the U.S. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals. http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

[Caecus]

You are all wrong. 11 is too old. 

 

What we should do is have a society where male children are taken away from their families at the age of 5 to be raised by the NRA. Public education is a tool of propaganda for the liberals to brainwash our children, so the NRA should take away our children to teach them the true values of Americans. They will teach our children how to shoot guns, physically train them to be ready for fighting against the federal government. Girls should also be physically trained, so that they can birth true patriots and soldiers to fight the government. They should also own guns and be prepared as a last line of defense against the evil shadow government should our brave men fall in battle. 

 

One day, we will overthrow the federal government and enslave the liberals and communists to work on farms to feed our righteous Christian army. Hillary Clinton is part of the evil communists. Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are both too liberal to lead our great nation, they do not have a vision for true conservatism!  

[Caecus]

Ok... I'm scared. I think I'll get a gun just to protect myself from the Illuminati *cough* Caecus *cough*.

 

It's true. Did you know that Osama Bin Ladin was a government setup? Want to hear some proof? Every single SEAL who was part of killing Osama Bin Ladin area dead now. The government only leaves us alone because the public education system and media is effectively brainwashing everyone like you all. You are all being fooled! Wake up, grab your guns, be ready to fight a gurellia war, and be ready to take down the government. The tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of patriots, we will defeat the shadow government that is tyrannical over all! 

 

Donald Trump is also lying. He's given money to the government, he supported tyranny! Donald Trump is a Clinton conspiracy, he's running to make it easier for Clinton to get into power! Clinton went to Trump's wedding! Trump paid money to support Clinton! 

[Doktor Avalanche]

It's true. Did you know that Osama Bin Ladin was a government setup? Want to hear some proof? Every single SEAL who was part of killing Osama Bin Ladin area dead now. The government only leaves us alone because the public education system and media is effectively brainwashing everyone like you all. You are all being fooled! Wake up, grab your guns, be ready to fight a gurellia war, and be ready to take down the government. The tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of patriots, we will defeat the shadow government that is tyrannical over all! 

 

Donald Trump is also lying. He's given money to the government, he supported tyranny! Donald Trump is a Clinton conspiracy, he's running to make it easier for Clinton to get into power! Clinton went to Trump's wedding! Trump paid money to support Clinton! 

I don't know if you are sarcastically insulting the Tea Party or seriously drinking the kool-aid of American Idiocy, ala Blind-Patriotism.

[LordRahl2]

He is, apparently successfully, trolling the shit out of you.