Just now, thegreathah said:

It's completely nonsensical to believe that in the chaos of a public mass shooting civilians will be able to figure out where the fire is coming from and effectively put that threat out, without harming others in their way.

 

 

It isn't difficult to discover where shooting is coming from when you're in a tiny little church building. It is definitely much more difficult in an open environment, but not under these circumstances. I'd say the difficulty of determining a direction for the shooting is subjective and non-debatable as a result.

 

6 minutes ago, thegreathah said:

Then how do you propose we find and eliminate all these "sick" people without restricting guns. America has one of the highest rates of mental disorder and disease in the world, it would be near impossible to properly diagnose and prevent those people from getting guns without having some sort of requirement at the point of sale. 

 

We may "battle DUI by creating a legal toxication limit" but that only works AFTER the person has driven drunk. That's not preventing something from happening. 

Background checks, and a requirement to register the weapons with law enforcement, something that a vast majority of Americans agree with.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/220637/americans-widely-support-tighter-regulations-gun-sales.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles

Quote

 

Completely false. If that were the case, countries like Australia, the UK, France, etc which initiated programs to stopping gun violence would be seeing mass shootings, or shootings in general, at a similar rate that we were.

 

 

 

Well, that's because we aren't Australia, or the UK, or France. Those countries also don't have a rich heritage of gun ownership and gun rights like the United States do. They also have much smaller populations than we do, smaller land masses than we do, and much fewer guns than we do. I'm also sure that they don't have a 2nd amendment like we do or some other document that they actually hold dear to them like we do with the Constitution.

Quote

How is it that many Americans (including myself) feel perfectly content with not owning a vast array of firearms. The only place they'd even be applicable is in my home, where by the time I even heard or got up to stop someone I would likely be dead, or the intruder would be gone.

A growing minority of Americans live in a household with guns present. That minority is 48%. No one is forcing you to own a firearm, but you can't force me NOT to own one. We can look at the Constitution and the Supreme Court ruling and see that it's already been settled and debated on several times.

 

2 minutes ago, Kallus Rourke said:

I'm positive that the majority of people who cry about losing their guns have NEVER owned or used one, they just cry because of the RIGHT possibly being taken away. 

 

Statistically speaking, that is false. Most that are against banning guns are Republicans, and most Republicans own guns. About 40% of Democrats also own guns, which is almost half of those that somehow also want to restrict gun ownership.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx

 

Quote

There's no way to have said statistics on something that hasn't happened.  It is, however a fact that a majority of people, specifically Americans, have no idea the dark web exists.  Even if they've heard of it, I doubt they have any clue what goes in within it.  I can positively say if guns were banned in the US and people had to rely on the dark web only, there would be a huge downfall in gun crimes across the US.  Granted, people can still learn about the dark web from people who know people, but you get my point.

So then you're basing your statement off of probability, without any actual material evidence to support it? We can do that all day, friend. If I don't do a courtesy flush when I take this dump, I'm probably going to clog the toilet. Do I have any numbers to back that up? No, but it's likely to happen right?

Just now, willpv23 said:

I fail to see how someone with a firearm would ever help in these situations. Say everyone at the church had a gun - they all pull their guns at the sound of shots, now EVERYONE HAS A GUN OUT. They start shooting who they THINK was the assailant and end up killing innocents themselves. I'm sorry, but I absolutely hate the "if more people had guns they could have stopped this" argument.

 

 

I don't think anyone would agree that everyone pulling out a gun and shooting in the direction of the shots is a good idea. Nobody is saying that, and no one in their right mind has ever said that. The idea is that a shooter enters the building, and a few that are carrying pull their weapons and eliminate the threat. There are hundreds of videos on how this has saved lives and businesses on YouTube. And the fact that I had to actually explain this is evidence that you are against gun ownership, but don't quite understand why people would support gun ownership. It's OK to disagree with something, but you need to understand why people feel a certain way before you can disagree with it. That's a problem that we have in this country.

 

Quote

I do not want any old Billy-Bob-Joe without any training in identifying and neutralizing a threat "protecting" me.

Well, that's on you. I'd much rather have someone who thinks they know how to use a firearm in front of me rather than no one and I'm facing first into the shooter. 

Guns are just like driving... after the test noone is going to keep both hands on the wheel or stop at the stop sign... people are just irresponsible and out of those irresponsible ones, small bunch are gonna be nutcases...to top that you give them all that at 16yo...  For someone from Europe that's scary. I applaud your laws, but there was always gonna be danger with those.

17 minutes ago, thegreathah said:

Battling the people that use the tools will unintentionally be battling the tools along with it. It's much easier to do a background on someone when they are purchasing guns rather than when they aren't doing anything out of the "norm"

 

By "sick" I don't mean a mental condition. White, brown, black, zebra, if you want to kill others, something is not right with you (it's only my opinion though). 

 

One thing I don't understand is why in many US states guns are sold without an extensive BG check. You need to visit a doctor even to get a license, but not a gun. I'm all pro-guns and if I lived in the States I'd get one or two, but I have zero complaints against a background check and a unified register (at least statewide) of firearm owners, with the possible exception of hunting rifles. 

Just now, Hastings said:

 

By "sick" I don't mean a mental condition. White, brown, black, zebra, if you want to kill others, something is not right with you (it's only my opinion though). 

 

One thing I don't understand is why in many US states guns are sold without an extensive BG check. You need to visit a doctor even to get a license, but not a gun. I'm all pro-guns and if I lived in the States I'd get one or two, but I have zero complaints against a background check and a unified register (at least statewide) of firearm owners, with the possible exception of hunting rifles. 

A vast majority of Americans support this, and so do I. 

5 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I don't think anyone would agree that everyone pulling out a gun and shooting in the direction of the shots is a good idea. Nobody is saying that, and no one in their right mind has ever said that. The idea is that a shooter enters the building, and a few that are carrying pull their weapons and eliminate the threat. There are hundreds of videos on how this has saved lives and businesses on YouTube. And the fact that I had to actually explain this is evidence that you are against gun ownership, but don't quite understand why people would support gun ownership. It's OK to disagree with something, but you need to understand why people feel a certain way before you can disagree with it. That's a problem that we have in this country.

 

I'm not against gun ownership, nor am I for it. There are arguments on either side that make sense to me. But the one that doesn't is the "there would be less shootings if everyone owned a gun." You're right, no one would agree it is a good idea to just start shooting, but put someone in a situation like that and they are no longer thinking. They are acting on full impulse and adrenaline. To someone without training, that impulse might be "don't die and shoot" and some might even panic. There's a reason the military and police go through extensive firearms training.

 

Yes, owning a gun for self defense or defense of others against a single target with few other bystanders is fine, and I imagine your YouTube videos show that. But owning a gun with the expectation of killing a shooter in the midst of panic and chaos is just illogical.

Was this another Automatic weapon shooting?  

1 minute ago, willpv23 said:

 

I'm not against gun ownership, nor am I for it. There are arguments on either side that make sense to me. But the one that doesn't is the "there would be less shootings if everyone owned a gun." Y

 

Yes, owning a gun for self defense or defense of others against a single target with few other bystanders is fine, and I imagine your YouTube videos show that. But owning a gun with the expectation of killing a shooter in the midst of panic and chaos is just illogical.

2

Every gun owner I've ever met hasn't given me this impression, but that's not really based on anything other than some simple and short interactions. We don't believe that everyone should own a gun. We believe that law-abiding citizens that wish to own guns should be able to own guns. And if one of said law-abiding citizens were placed into the ground-zero of a shooting, that's another good guy that's hopefully ready to take down the perpetrator. The police take time to respond, especially in rural areas where response times can be more than 10 minutes. The police aren't reliable. I support them and I love them, but they aren't reliable.

Quote

ou're right, no one would agree it is a good idea to just start shooting, but put someone in a situation like that and they are no longer thinking. They are acting on full impulse and adrenaline.

.

1

Every gun owner I've ever met hasn't given me this impression, but that's not really based on anything other than some simple and short interactions with them. It takes a certain type of person to want to own a firearm and then intend to use it if needed. Not just anyone is gonna roll up to a shop and purchase weapons. I have no numbers, but I think it's safe to assume that a significant number of gun owners actively go to ranges for personal firearms training. Usually, someone that legally owns a gun knows what they're doing. I have good confidence in legal gun owners and their ability to take down perpetrators when appropriate. There aren't very many stories of that type of situation going terribly wrong, but it does happen. 

Quote

To someone without training, that impulse might be "don't die and shoot" and some might even panic. There's a reason the military and police go through extensive firearms training

I dunno man. Just as someone with that impulse would likely be barred from going into law enforcement or the armed forces, they should probably be barred from owning a firearm. That's really subjective to the individual and the situation. It's hard to make a solid statement on that because it really just depends.

31 minutes ago, Sinnisa said:

Guns are just like driving... after the test noone is going to keep both hands on the wheel or stop at the stop sign... people are just irresponsible and out of those irresponsible ones, small bunch are gonna be nutcases...to top that you give them all that at 16yo...  For someone from Europe that's scary. I applaud your laws, but there was always gonna be danger with those.

 

There is a huge difference though.  Arguably, some 16 year olds driving a car are far more mature than most gun owners.  Look at it like this,  every day a car could plow onto the side walk and mow down tons of civilians.  This could happen in bigger cities, but it rarely does.  Yes, it happens, but not that often.  Hell, getting a driver's license is easier than getting a permit for a gun, yet people still rely on using guns.  Why is that?  We both know why, gun vs car gun is always more deadly, which is hilarious given what I just said.  You could easily run down 20 people in the time it takes to shoot your gun and reload it.  How many car attacks have there been?  How many people have actually used cars as a killing machine as opposed to guns?  Guns are the problem, not the ones who own them.  If people wanted to send a message they'd get a car, which is also easier to obtain, and mow down every pedestrian they can find.

17 minutes ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

There is a huge difference though.  Arguably, some 16 year olds driving a car are far more mature than most gun owners.  Look at it like this,  every day a car could plow onto the side walk and mow down tons of civilians.  This could happen in bigger cities, but it rarely does.  Yes, it happens, but not that often.  Hell, getting a driver's license is easier than getting a permit for a gun, yet people still rely on using guns.  Why is that?  We both know why, gun vs car gun is always more deadly, which is hilarious given what I just said.  You could easily run down 20 people in the time it takes to shoot your gun and reload it.  How many car attacks have there been?  How many people have actually used cars as a killing machine as opposed to guns?  Guns are the problem, not the ones who own them.  If people wanted to send a message they'd get a car, which is also easier to obtain, and mow down every pedestrian they can find.

This does not make any logical or statistical sense. Guns are not the problem, people are the problem. You're telling me that people are perfect but guns are keeping people from being perfect? That's the implication you're giving with that statement "guns are the problem not the people using them". 

By the way, more Americans die from cars than guns every year. 

Edited November 5, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

I wanted to go on my usual ramble of why having guns running rampant amongst the population will never, ever stop this kind of things from happening (and quite the opposite in fact), but other, more eloquent people did that for me, so I'll just stand back and read. 

 

That, and I'm also on my phone, in my bed, about to sleep, so I can't be arsed to go over this shit all over again. 

2 hours ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

There is a huge difference though.  Arguably, some 16 year olds driving a car are far more mature than most gun owners.  Look at it like this,  every day a car could plow onto the side walk and mow down tons of civilians.  This could happen in bigger cities, but it rarely does.  Yes, it happens, but not that often.  Hell, getting a driver's license is easier than getting a permit for a gun, yet people still rely on using guns.  Why is that?  We both know why, gun vs car gun is always more deadly, which is hilarious given what I just said.  You could easily run down 20 people in the time it takes to shoot your gun and reload it.  How many car attacks have there been?  How many people have actually used cars as a killing machine as opposed to guns?  Guns are the problem, not the ones who own them.  If people wanted to send a message they'd get a car, which is also easier to obtain, and mow down every pedestrian they can find.

 

Cars are far less useful in mass killings than guns. Two car "attacks" have happened in Manhattan this year. The one other than the Manhattan attack this month, was the one in Times Square. Although it was not intentional, he drove his car into a crowd in the middle of one of the busiest parts of the city but only killed a single person. The attack earlier this month, killed just 8 people after driving the length of 7 city blocks through a school, and a bike path. Cities have been implementing thick concrete blocks at large tourist destinations making it near impossible for a vehicle to drive into it. Also the fact that cars are not as strong as people think, driving your car into 15 150 pound bodies at once is going to fuck it up whereas using a gun you can just spray and pray, the worst case scenario is your gun can jam, or you run out of ammo if you are ill prepared. Also the fact that driving your car into a crowd of 150 people will 1. be slow as always, you cant run down 150 people in 30 seconds, and 2. once someone sees the roof of a car plowing through people and someone screaming they are going to get the message whereas if you are in a crowd of people and hear gunshots you can look around but you wont be able to see a 6 foot tall person in the middle of a huge crowd shooting. Also, guns are not the problem. There are well over 300,000,000 guns legally owned in the United States today, but only 13,000 people have died due to a gun injury this year, many being at the hands of a terrorist or gang violence, or just someone not in their right state of mind. Revoking people's rights to bear arms would be extremely illogical and unconstitutional whereas checking the person who is buying them, more thoroughly than now, and restricting the unnecessary parts like a bull stock or 100 round clips could limit gun violence, and terrorist attacks I believe. I know we all play GTA so we think running over 200 people with our little sedan in 30 seconds is possible, but in reality in 30 seconds you could probably run over 10 people if it is densely populated and probably destroy your car in the meantime. I don't know what my point is with this paragraph, but it just comes down to the people who own the guns that are being used to terrorize the country are not in the right state of mind, and guns are much more effective in mass killings than vehicles. 

The shooter has just been id'd as Devin Patrick Kelley.

It's came to the point with America where it's near impossible to think of a strategy that both sides would agree on which moves forward into a law that helps minimize the amount of weapons that are allowed to be obtained illegally. I hear a lot of things after terrorist attacks in Europe such as "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" and really, at this point it is shown to be incorrect.

It also confuses me when the goto argument for owning weapons is the 2nd amendment, because what you are doing is applying a right which first adopted as a law in England in the 1600's, surely editing or rewriting these laws to represent how the world has advanced in that time would make some form of sense.

51 minutes ago, Ben said:

It's came to the point with America where it's near impossible to think of a strategy that both sides would agree on which moves forward into a law that helps minimize the amount of weapons that are allowed to be obtained illegally. I hear a lot of things after terrorist attacks in Europe such as "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" and really, at this point it is shown to be incorrect.

It also confuses me when the goto argument for owning weapons is the 2nd amendment, because what you are doing is applying a right which first adopted as a law in England in the 1600's, surely editing or rewriting these laws to represent how the world has advanced in that time would make some form of sense.

Well, the problem with that is that Americans actually value the Constitution and our rights and our founding fathers' original intent. It's why the Supreme Court has ruled that we have the right to own weapons according to the 2nd amendment. There's plenty of evidence that less legal gun owners equals more crime. See the statistics I've cited several times previously on how Americans feel about the situation.

 

What America wants is clear. Americans want background checks, registration with law enforcement, a waiting period between purchasing weapons, and a large minority want a restriction on assault weapons. Americans, statistically speaking, as a whole, don't want any weapons bans or restrictions to purchasing weapons for the "common man"... which is exactly why they haven't been completely banned yet and won't ever be completely banned. Because that's not what Americans want. 

 

No, no one has said that the only solution to gun crime is to add more guns. We're saying that if a law-abiding citizen wants to purchase a gun, they should have every right to do so without any sort of impediment. A good guy with a gun is definitely a beneficial matchup against a bad guy with a gun. At least the police seem to think so, and most Americans. 

 

I also find it strange that an overwhelming majority of law enforcement say that law-abiding gun owners help reduce shootings against police, and thus support gun ownership. You know, since a good guy with a gun being beneficial is supposedly incorrect. Unless you have some numbers handy, of course. 

 

How ironic that the men and women most likely to face gun violence just so happen to vastly support gun ownership. Who'd a thought? Maybe because police officers just happen to be good guys with guns and decided to be good guys with guns as a career? Maybe there are a lot of good guys with guns that decided not to go into law enforcement? I dunno, but let's ban them anyways because everything is wrong. Guns still kill people regardless of what the numbers say. Because like Trumps White House minion said, sometimes we can disagree with the facts. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438327/gun-control-police-officers-overwhelmingly-support-second-amendment-rights

https://www.policeone.com/gun-legislation-law-enforcement/articles/6186552-Police-Gun-Control-Survey-Are-legally-armed-citizens-the-best-solution-to-gun-violence/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/11/pew-survey-police-support-gun-rights-over-gun-control-3-1-margin/

Edited November 6, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

And half the posts in this thread just got blown out:

 

To recap the video, the man interviewed witnessed the shooter (who had a dishonorable discharge and is unable to legally purchase a gun) in a gunfight with what the interviewee recognized as a good person. The good person had a rifle and engaged the suspect, most likely hitting him. A high speed chase ensued when the good person with the gun hopped in the vehicle of the man being interviewed, and they gave chase to the suspect, on the phone with law enforcement the whole time. The suspect crashed, died (most likely a combination of being shot and the impact), and the citizen held him at gunpoint.

 

Despite being on the phone with police for however long the chase happened, and informing them that the mass shooting suspect was in their sight, it still took police 7 minutes to respond to their location.

7 hours ago, 0taku said:

Was this another Automatic weapon shooting?  

I recall having this conversation with you before. Instead of going into the details of the fact fully automatic weapons are a major pain in the ass to obtain or afford or the fact that automatic means more than one bullet being fired every time the trigger is pulled, I'll ask you to name one shooting in the US committed with a fully automatic weapon where the owner jumped through all the legal hoops  in the last 50 years.

 

I'll give you a hint, it was a cop who shot his cheating wife and her lover with an uzi.

Edited November 6, 20178 yr by c13

@c13 Is it confirmed that the Las Vegas shooting just had a bump stock and not true full-auto?

5 minutes ago, cp702 said:

@c13 Is it confirmed that the Las Vegas shooting just had a bump stock and not true full-auto?

A pre ban select fire m16 lower receiver tends to be at least $12,000, so unlikely he had multiples of those. Converting an AR-15 to true select fire is fairly difficult for a layman, and I'm sure something would have came out by now if he had multiple legal class 3 firearms.

5 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Well, the problem with that is that Americans actually value the Constitution and our rights and our founding fathers' original intent. It's why the Supreme Court has ruled that we have the right to own weapons according to the 2nd amendment.

 

You know, I've already mentioned that in another thread before, but a Constitution can be changed. In France, our first Constitution was written in 1791. As of today, we are at the fifth version of it, and it is often discussed to look all over it again to modify it and make a sixth version of it. Through all those changes of version, things were modified to fit better the society in which that new version was written, to offer a stable political situation for citizens, as well as better, more fitting rights for them.

 

Laws aren't engraved in marble. They can be modified. A constitution can be modified. Laws can be tweaked, updated, enhanced, erased depending on the context in which they are applied compared to the context in which they were written. Clinging to the constitution like this while automatically refusing to change anything about it is both stubborn and stupid. You (as in, american citizens) don't refuse it because it wouldn't make sense, you refuse it simply because you don't want it modified, even if it would make sense to do it. It's beyond me.

 

 

5 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

There's plenty of evidence that less legal gun owners equals more crime. See the statistics I've cited several times previously on how Americans feel about the situation.

 

Okay okay okay, hold on there. There's plenty of evidence that less legal gun owners equals more crime? Really? Are you sure about that? Because, if we want evidence, let's talk real, concrete situations and facts. Here are a few numbers I gathered by searching a bit on the internet.

 

France:

Murder: 1.2 case per 100,000 inhabitants

Rape: 18 cases per 100,000 inhabitants

Burglary: 373 cases per 100,000 inhabitants

 

US:

Murder: 4.88 cases per 100,000 inhabitants

Rape: 38.6 cases per 100,000 inhabitants

Burglary: 491 cases per 100,000 inhabitants

 

 

I could have included robbery, vehicle theft, etc, but, as you can guess, results are of an identical caliber.

 

So. France? Guns need a permit with people going through very thorough check, and said guns are allowed for only for those permit owners, and ONLY in their house. Carrying a gun in the streets is strictly prohibited. US? Very laxist guns laws and controls. And surprisingly enough, crime rates are inferior in France compared to the US. Incredible, right? Or maybe, not so much. 

 

You know, you actually remind me of what Trump often says. "Americans feel". Feel. That's the key word. But feels aren't facts. You can feel safe, even if you aren't, you can feel threatened, even if you aren't. You can feel like climate change isn't real, even if it actually is. Feels are subjective, on the opposite of objective, and therefore shouldn't ever be referred to when trying to solve a concrete issue. Feels, aren't facts. A president isn't elected to please the population, he's elected to try and make the country a better place for its citizens. If that means going against the opinion of the majority to actually accomplish something for their own good, then it should be done. And that includes hurting people's feelings now and then (something Trump usually is so prone to do).

 

Edited November 6, 20178 yr by Hystery

I created this account solely because of this topic. I found it very frustrating and simply couldn't resist posting...

 

First things first: gun ownership is a RIGHT. Please understand that it isn't a right that is afforded us by our government... the 2nd amendment doesn't give us the right to own firearms. It doesn't give us that right in any way. The 2nd amendment protects us from our government trying to take away that right. Anyone that looks at our history and reads about our founders will know and understand that the right is granted inherently (whether by God or by natural laws is for each man's perception to determine). The RIGHT to protect ourselves is inherent... not dictated by a document. For people outside of the USA, this can be very difficult to understand (I do not mean that in a negative way, simply an informative one).

 

The 2nd amendment is not up for debate. That has been tried and has failed (many times). Please, can we not have that argument again and again? Two of the core principles on which we base our freedom are defined by the first two amendments: we are free to arm ourselves and we are free to say what we feel needs to be said. Those that claim the 2nd amendment was based on an outmoded ideal that isn't applicable today... well, they are either not Americans (and therefore usually don't understand what makes our 'freedom' unique) or they have no understanding of what our rights are and why they are so staunchly protected. We, as Americans, are not subjects of our government and (hopefully) never will be. We own our government, not vise versa.

 

Before criticizing my statements, please understand that the right to have firearms is just that ('a right') and will stay that way. My arguments are based on that simple fact, and I move forward from there. If a debate about whether we should disarm the nation is needed, we can have that debate... but I see that as a separate subject.

 

Tragedies like this are heart wrenching and horrible and disgusting. Please don't see my viewpoint as callous or uncaring as it is neither. Having said that, I have to say the obligatory statements about freedom not being free... ad nauseam. Although that statement isn't a delicate one, it is true just the same. To have the right to defend ourselves, we must also pay the price for that right. The main price is that bad people (and mentally unstable ones as well) will abuse the freedoms this country has by committing atrocious acts of villainy.

 

Unfortunately, bad people will do bad things. That isn't an American problem, by any means, yet because it is done with firearms, it is seen as preventable. It isn't preventable without stripping away freedoms. Murderers will still murder, rapists will still rape, etc regardless of what the law says. I agree that ready access to firearms could be argued to increase the damage these people can do. That is a valid argument. I disagree with the premise, but it is still a valid argument. I could point out the numerous times that access to firearms prevented these evils and then the argument would revolve around that. Having made that mistake in the past, I'll simply say that it is a valid argument to make, but one which I disagree with and try to leave it there.

 

So what should we do? To that question, sadly, I have no ready answer. I'm not clapping my hands and joyously yelling that it is something that we should simply ignore because it is inevitable. I'm honestly not. As a man of faith, I sat and prayed and joined with my mother in grieving for those whose lives were lost. We discussed our Church and how we are now openly going to request on Friday's board meeting that two guaranteed CCWs be in attendance every Sabbath from now on. There are those of us that usually carry, but more often than not we leave our firearms at home. We are going to take a vote to see if we can have designated individuals who will make a point of being armed. No, that doesn't solve the problem of guns being in the hands of people who would commit such acts, but at least, in our own way, we are rising to the challenge of protecting our family in the most direct way possible.

 

My worry is that there are many in the political field who want to disarm this country. That isn't fear mongering, that is simply taking them at their word. So when those same people try and establish "common sense" gun laws, I get nervous. I am not a fan of a gun registry. I think, in many ways, that reduces the value of having said weapons. A tyrannical government is something to be wary of... as our founders warned us and as has been seen across the globe. A disarmed people are subject to the will of those who are not disarmed (ie the government and the criminals).

 

I am also not a fan of magazine size limits... not because I think it is an absurd idea, but simply because it is a slippery slope from that point on as can be seen happening now in a certain state or two. When a standard issue handgun's magazine exceeds the arbitrary government enforced limit of rounds a weapon can hold, a person might realize they are already sliding down that slope.

 

The same applies to 'assault weapon' bans. When fictitious names for a nonexistent genre of firearm start being discussed, I again get nervous. While I don't own an AR-15 (for example), I see ZERO reasons to prevent someone from owning them. I'm against buying limits within a set period of time. Again, the slippery slope. The government has no right to tell me how many I can own, how often I can buy, or anything of the sort. The slippery slope again comes into play. What is next... how many rounds of ammunition I can own? What about purchase within a set period of time? No. At some point we have to say that either we still have the right to own firearms and we fight these 'common sense' laws, or we just hand everything over and trust in our government and police. Police... you know... the same people that are accused constantly of abuse of power, of racism, of indiscriminate killing and evil intent. The same people making those absurd claims would then have them be the only legally armed people... yeah, that makes sense.

 

At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself if the tragedy of these occurrences is worth the right to protect our freedom. With a sad heart, I say yes... yes, it is. Without the ability to protect ourselves, our families, and our rights... then our freedoms are given and taken without our consent, whether that be by our own government, criminals who already don't care what the law says, or anyone else with more power than us. My point is this: these shootings (regardless of whether it is a mentally disturbed individual, a man carrying out the commands of his faith, a politically motivated monster, or anyone else) are abhorrent and painful and while I wish there was a way to prevent them from happening, I openly acknowledge that our freedom is too great a price to pay.

 

1 hour ago, Hystery said:

Clinging to the constitution like this while automatically refusing to change anything about it is both stubborn and stupid. You (as in, american citizens) don't refuse it because it wouldn't make sense, you refuse it simply because you don't want it modified, even if it would make sense to do it. It's beyond me.

 

A constitution CAN be changed. The real question: should it be? The vast majority of us say no... and if that ever becomes the minority, then we will have another civil war. The problem is, your premise is based on the incorrect attitude that says less freedom for more security 'makes sense'. We disagree. Of course you don't understand that as you aren't an American and you have always lacked the freedoms we have... to you, it isn't a right. That is one of the many inherent differences between our countries.

 

1 hour ago, Hystery said:

Okay okay okay, hold on there. There's plenty of evidence that less legal gun owners equals more crime? Really? Are you sure about that? Because, if we want evidence, let's talk real, concrete situations and facts. Here are a few numbers I gathered by searching a bit on the internet.

 

France:

Murder: 1.2 case per 100,000 inhabitants

Rape: 18 cases per 100,000 inhabitants

Burglary: 373 cases per 100,000 inhabitants

 

US:

Murder: 4.88 cases per 100,000 inhabitants

Rape: 38.6 cases per 100,000 inhabitants

Burglary: 491 cases per 100,000 inhabitants

 

 

I could have included robbery, vehicle theft, etc, but, as you can guess, results are of an identical caliber.

 

So. France? Guns need a permit with people going through very thorough check, and said guns are allowed for only for those permit owners, and ONLY in their house. Carrying a gun in the streets is strictly prohibited. US? Very laxist guns laws and controls. And surprisingly enough, crime rates are inferior in France compared to the US. Incredible, right? Or maybe, not so much. 

 

There are multitudes of studies that show both views. There are a million problems comparing country crime rates such as reported/unreported, definitions as to what constitutes a violent crime, etc.

 

What you most need to consider in any statistics that you are researching, is that the vast majority of our crimes, ESPECIALLY all forms of violent crime... they are concentrated in a select few areas of our country. It isn't 'politically correct' to say as much so even most Americans will refuse to point this out, but the VAST majority occurs in places like Oakland, St. Louis, Detroit, New Orleans, Baltimore, etc. The reason why this is never pointed out is because those places are almost entirely dominated by blacks. Because of the demographics, it is considered racist to even mention it. The culture of those areas is as alien to the rest of America as yours would be.

 

Also, when considering gun ownership vs crime statistics here is the US... the facts are plain that the strictest gun laws correlate directly with the highest crime rates. In our culture, criminals don't want to risk being shot. Here, they commit less crime or they move to areas with stronger gun restrictions to ply their trade.

 

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/criminal-justice/crime/does-gun-control-reduce-crime

 

1 hour ago, Hystery said:

You know, you actually remind me of what Trump often says. "Americans feel". Feel. That's the key word. But feels aren't facts. You can feel safe, even if you aren't, you can feel threatened, even if you aren't. You can feel like climate change isn't real, even if it actually is. Feels are subjective, on the opposite of objective, and therefore shouldn't ever be referred to when trying to solve a concrete issue. Feels, aren't facts. A president isn't elected to please the population, he's elected to try and make the country a better place for its citizens. If that means going against the opinion of the majority to actually accomplish something for their own good, then it should be done. And that includes hurting people's feelings now and then (something Trump usually is so prone to do).

 

Feel free to do a bit of research on the topic before making ad hominem comments about something in which you obviously express your feelings about a subject you don't understand and have no knowledge of. You obviously do not understand the system of government that we have here in the United States.

 

Final note: I'm not a huge fan of President Trump. I find him to be thin skinned and constitutionally vapid... but these comments about what he is or isn't going to do to solve the 'problem' are absurd. It is neither the power of the President of the Untited States to 'fix this problem' nor the duty. Any 'fixes' would be in the form of laws, which the last time that I checked... isn't the president's bailiwick. Just sayin'

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.