1 minute ago, qwertyK said:

Here's the point: Mental illness is a big factor in most of these shootings. Even Trump admitted it. So WHY THE HELL do you decide to remove a law which bans the mentally ill buying guns? Either the gun was illegally bought or he just slipped through the net because he shouldn't have even been allowed to buy it (he was denied it under Texas law)

 

Times have changed since 1776. The government is not going to turn against the people any time soon. More to the point we're no longer  looking at bolt action single shot rifles but semi automatic assault style carbines that can carry 30 rounds.

 

You don't see mass shootings happening this frequent in say France for example. In the UK, the gun laws are very tight, and I support gun ownership, I love shooting, but is there really a need for a AR-15? Hunting can be done with a shotgun. Let's face it .The only "real" reason why people get AR-15s is because they like them. Self defense? Buy a 9mm handgun. America needs to sort out its health system and gun laws. It is ridiculous this is being allowed to happen in what is supposedly the most developed country in the world. 

 

Ironically in the UK and in the US actually, before these bans came into place, there was less gun crime...but then mental health was less recognised and stuff. There is more gun crime in the UK now then there was in 1996 when they banned handguns and yet 90% of the shootings that take place in the UK are committed by someone with a handgun. 

 

There is simply no need for this weaponry. At least make the magazine capacities lower.

 

It shouldn't be legal for the NRA to keep sponsoring lobbyists, which is the real reason gun control isn't happening. Let's face it. Trump couldn't care less about the 2nd amendment if the nation wasn't feeling so strong about it. It's the money. 

Define mental illness? Then we can talk about how we keep guns out of the hands of "BAD PEOPLE".

Who is going to say who is and who is not mentally capable of having a firearm?  Are they A Political?

Who needs a AR-15?  Waco?  Bundy ranch? North Hollywood shootout? Me?

 

What is your definition of "FREEDOM"?  Lets start there and and we can move on to the next subject.  

Just now, ToeBius said:

Define mental illness? Then we can talk about how we keep guns out of the hands of "BAD PEOPLE".

Who is going to say who is and who is not mentally capable of having a firearm?  Are they A Political?

Who needs a AR-15?  Waco?  Bundy ranch? North Hollywood shootout? Me?

 

What is your definition of "FREEDOM"?  Lets start there and and we can move on to the next subject.  

Being able to own a gun doesn't necessarily mean you are free. If you are being controlled by the state, you are not free. If the state control everything you do rather than just the type of guns you can own, you are obviously not free. Mental illness. It is a broad term. I have depression and anxiety for example, like a lot of people, but does that mean I am going to go out and shoot 58 people? Course not. But if you are diagnosed with an illness, such as paranoid schizophrenia, or have any form of serious mental illness, which would warrant your ability to make descions, and that could mean you may be eligible to be in a mental health institution, your access to firearms should be restricted. Or, at least, limit the firearms people meeting this criteria can access, such as no assault rifles, no submachine guns, no pistols which can hold over 12 rounds. No one needs an AR-15 apart from police, and the military. I own a air rifle amongst other air weapons. That is perfectly sufficient to hunt. It can also be utilised for  self defense, should I need it .Real firearms? The same concept, pump action shotguns are a "tool". AR-15s and AK-47s are not. They are weapons of war.  There is no need to hunt a deer with an AK-47. Or protect your house. I recognise the need for firearms in very small rural communities that have no PD etc, but they still don't need semi auto rifles. 99% of the "bad people" in the USA that end up injuring masses of innocent civillians unfortunately are these people who have mental health issues. 

39 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

The only true answer to this "DEMAND" that you are asking, is for people to take into account, there own personal responsibility.  I took up the decision to do what I have to do everyday to give me another chance to come home and see my family again.  The person that chose to try and take my life, cares little for his/her's.

 

Wait wait wait. Please PLEASE tell me I am misinterpreting this. 

 

Are you saying it’s the victims fault they are dead for not carrying weapons to defend themselves? If so that is just a ridiculous and outrageous statement and I can’t believe someone would think that. 

14 minutes ago, qwertyK said:

Being able to own a gun doesn't necessarily mean you are free. If you are being controlled by the state, you are not free. If the state control everything you do rather than just the type of guns you can own, you are obviously not free. Mental illness. It is a broad term. I have depression and anxiety for example, like a lot of people, but does that mean I am going to go out and shoot 58 people? Course not. But if you are diagnosed with an illness, such as paranoid schizophrenia, or have any form of serious mental illness, which would warrant your ability to make descions, and that could mean you may be eligible to be in a mental health institution, your access to firearms should be restricted. Or, at least, limit the firearms people meeting this criteria can access, such as no assault rifles, no submachine guns, no pistols which can hold over 12 rounds. No one needs an AR-15 apart from police, and the military. I own a air rifle amongst other air weapons. That is perfectly sufficient to hunt. It can also be utilised for  self defense, should I need it .Real firearms? The same concept, pump action shotguns are a "tool". AR-15s and AK-47s are not. They are weapons of war.  There is no need to hunt a deer with an AK-47. Or protect your house. I recognise the need for firearms in very small rural communities that have no PD etc, but they still don't need semi auto rifles. 99% of the "bad people" in the USA that end up injuring masses of innocent civillians unfortunately are these people who have mental health issues. 

You gave a better definition of mental health than most people.  That is the first issue we have.

The Second Amendment is not for hunting.  Read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers.

If the Government can have these guns, then why cant I? 

5 minutes ago, Ben said:

This sums up how silly it is to want to keep a constitution which was wrote when Americans where legally allowed to own slaves - the world is changing, and to rely on a constitution from so long ago in my eyes is just plain stupid. The way I see it,  I come from a country which has existed in a form since the 6th century, a country that at it's height was the largest empire in the history of the world, and even we was able to rewrite how our laws worked, so why can't America.

 

A changing time doesn't remove the God given right to defend yourself, your home, or your country. More - see below.

 

5 minutes ago, qwertyK said:

Here's the point: Mental illness is a big factor in most of these shootings. Even Trump admitted it. So WHY THE HELL do you decide to remove a law which bans the mentally ill buying guns? Either the gun was illegally bought or he just slipped through the net because he shouldn't have even been allowed to buy it (he was denied it under Texas law)

 

Times have changed since 1776. The government is not going to turn against the people any time soon. More to the point we're no longer  looking at bolt action single shot rifles but semi automatic assault style carbines that can carry 30 rounds.

 

You don't see mass shootings happening this frequent in say France for example. In the UK, the gun laws are very tight, and I support gun ownership, I love shooting, but is there really a need for a AR-15? Hunting can be done with a shotgun. Let's face it .The only "real" reason why people get AR-15s is because they like them. Self defense? Buy a 9mm handgun. America needs to sort out its health system and gun laws. It is ridiculous this is being allowed to happen in what is supposedly the most developed country in the world. 

 

Ironically in the UK and in the US actually, before these bans came into place, there was less gun crime...but then mental health was less recognised and stuff. There is more gun crime in the UK now then there was in 1996 when they banned handguns and yet 90% of the shootings that take place in the UK are committed by someone with a handgun. 

 

There is simply no need for this weaponry. At least make the magazine capacities lower.

 

It shouldn't be legal for the NRA to keep sponsoring lobbyists, which is the real reason gun control isn't happening. Let's face it. Trump couldn't care less about the 2nd amendment if the nation wasn't feeling so strong about it. It's the money. 

 

Mental illness is a big factor in mass shootings. What law was removed that banned mentally ill from buying guns? Surely you aren't talking about the one that was rescinded by Trump?!? Do you understand how our legal system works? How our rights work? It was unconstitutional (read:illegal and immoral) because it subverted due process... in laymen's terms: it refused a guaranteed right without the need to prove anything. Innocent until proven guilty is another of our beliefs that we hold in the U.S. and that went directly against it. That said you were guilty unless you could afford to prove your innocence.

 

Saying that the times have changed and that the government would never turn against it's own people is a statement that has been proclaimed by governments since the inception of governments. But THIS TIME it really is different? Rather than risk it... how about we stick to the rights that were defended by our founders just to make certain? Yeah... good idea.

 

Guess what. The argument about how guns have changed has been debunked more than virtually anything else. When the constitution was written, single fire muskets were NOT the only weapons. There were numerous weapons that fired numerous rounds per and held numerous rounds per. From the Belton Flintlocks (fired approx 20 rounds per trigger pull in less than 5 secs) to the Girandoni air rifle (22 round capacity ~30 seconds to empty) and even the Puckle gun (gatling gun),  and on and on and on and on. The only difference was the cost to produce them was extremely high. So that is debunked... please stop saying that they never knew 'assault style' weapons would exist.

 

Yes, the gun laws in the UK are very tight... yet lets look a bit closer...

 

There was a severe increase in the homicide rate after the gun ban which was then followed by a gradual decline when police forces were strengthened to an all time high. Since, there has only been a single year where the homicide rate was lower than it was before the ban.

 

There was ~90% increase in gun crime from 1999 to 2009, which happened after the ban.

 

Crime Research Prevention Center president John Lott found a direct correlation between higher firearm ownership and reduced police killings. Care about cops? Increase gun ownership.

I

6 minutes ago, willpv23 said:

 

Wait wait wait. Please PLEASE tell me I am misinterpreting this. 

 

Are you saying it’s the victims fault they are dead for not carrying weapons to defend themselves? If so that is just a ridiculous and outrageous statement and I can’t believe someone would think that. 

Yes I am saying that they should have thought of there personal safety.  It is not the responsibility of the police to protect you.  In France they relied on the police.  In England they relied on the police.  In the United States they relied on the police. The police failed at that.  I have relied on myself to save my life, not the police.  I am still alive, thank god,  and I can see my family.  I get to go home because I understand that there are sick people out there and the  best way to live is to rely on me.  I understand that laws stop no man from crime.  Personal Responsibility is the primary answer to most questions.  People are to reliant on others to do the bidding for them.

 

Everywhere I go I have a Glock 19, 2 spare mags, a knife and a IFAK, because I know that anything can happen at anytime and there is no one out there to protect me but myself.

5 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

I

Yes I am saying that they should have thought of there personal safety.  It is not the responsibility of the police to protect you.  In France they relied on the police.  In England they relied on the police.  In the United States they relied on the police. The police failed at that.  I have relied on myself to save my life, not the police.  I am still alive, thank god,  and I can see my family.  I get to go home because I understand that there are sick people out there and the  best way to live is to rely on me.  I understand that laws stop no man from crime.  Personal Responsibility is the primary answer to most questions.  People are to reliant on others to do the bidding for them.

 

Everywhere I go I have a Glock 19, 2 spare mags, a knife and a IFAK, because I know that anything can happen at anytime and there is no one out there to protect me but myself.

 

Please tell me that's a joke.  If you legitimately believe that, you need to look up what a police officer's job entails.  Furthermore, VICTIM BLAMING?  So it's a woman's fault she got raped since she got dressed up for a night out, right?  It's the police officer's fault he got shot and killed for being an officer, right?    Yeah, no, you do NOT victim blame.  I don't care what the situation is, it is NEVER the victim's fault.

I don't mean to sound rude, but Kallus... you are wrong. Even the Supreme Court found that officers are not constitutionally bound to protect. To serve and protect is a slogan and nothing more.

 

I love the men in blue for what they do, but relying on them to protect you is not only silly, but wrong.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

 

Maybe learn more on a topic before committing your opinions on said topic? Or express your opinions as just what they are, opinions.

Just now, Kallus Rourke said:

 

 

I am not victim blaming.  I am trying to have people understand that they had no other options and that if they had a gun then they would of had a force multiplier that could of saved other people. It is not the woman's fault that she got raped, but there are options out there that could of helped her defend herself.  To say I am victim blaming is low.  I have been a victim and used tools to go home again.  

 

So once again, I am not victim blaming, but people need to hold into account there own personal safety and not rely on others.

3 minutes ago, Narcissus said:

A changing time doesn't remove the God given right to defend yourself, your home, or your country. More - see below.

 

It's not a god-given right, it was given by the 'founding fathers' who where most definitely human, people who without a doubt could not foresee the future.

As for the fact that gun crime has gone up, this is mostly between gangs, and whilst it is not good enough and more needs to be done, this does not account for the amount of mass-shootings against innocent civilians, the last one being in 1995, the school massacre which resulted in the ban.

Just now, ToeBius said:

 I have relied on myself to save my life, not the police.  I am still alive, thank god,  and I can see my family.

Just to clarify, how many times have you been shot at and how many people have you killed trying to save your own life.
 

1 minute ago, ToeBius said:

I am not victim blaming.  I am trying to have people understand that they had no other options and that if they had a gun then they would of had a force multiplier that could of saved other people. It is not the woman's fault that she got raped, but there are options out there that could of helped her defend herself.  To say I am victim blaming is low.  I have been a victim and used tools to go home again.  

 

So once again, I am not victim blaming, but people need to hold into account there own personal safety and not rely on others.

 

Yes I am saying that they should have thought of there personal safety. 

 

That's victim blaming at its fullest.  If people always thought of their personal safety no one would ever go anywhere.

Ben... you know nothing of the founding fathers. They EXPRESSLY stated that it was a God given right and that the 2nd amendment was to protect that right, not grant it. See note above to Kallus.

Just now, Narcissus said:

Ben... you know nothing of the founding fathers. They EXPRESSLY stated that it was a God given right and that the 2nd amendment was to protect that right, not grant it. See note above to Kallus.

What I said has nothing to do with what the Supreme Court saying on what a cop is bound to do. What I am saying is that it is not a god-given right, it is a right, but I can fully assure you that god himself did not assign you that right. People gave you that right, and they gave you it based upon an opinion, opinions change and as such rights do.

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

16 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

I

Yes I am saying that they should have thought of there personal safety.  It is not the responsibility of the police to protect you.  In France they relied on the police.  In England they relied on the police.  In the United States they relied on the police. The police failed at that.  I have relied on myself to save my life, not the police.  I am still alive, thank god,  and I can see my family.  I get to go home because I understand that there are sick people out there and the  best way to live is to rely on me.  I understand that laws stop no man from crime.  Personal Responsibility is the primary answer to most questions.  People are to reliant on others to do the bidding for them.

 

Everywhere I go I have a Glock 19, 2 spare mags, a knife and a IFAK, because I know that anything can happen at anytime and there is no one out there to protect me but myself.

 

4 minutes ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

 

 

 

That's victim blaming at its fullest.  If people always thought of their personal safety no one would ever go anywhere.

Use the full text of what I said, and not the part that fulfills your point

No. It is a God given right to protect yourself... even the founders believed so hence the comments about the 2nd amendment. If you don't believe in God, then say your natural law given right or what have you... but the second amendment does not grant you a right... it DEFENDS that inherent right against the government trying to take it.

7 minutes ago, Narcissus said:

I love the men in blue for what they do, but relying on them to protect you is not only silly, but wrong.

 How silly of me to rely on LAW enforcement to protect me from people breaking the LAW. It's indeed so wrong, I'm glad you opened my eyes on that. 

 

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous by the minute. 

 

The 2nd amendment was a protection FOR the people in case of a tyrannical government. Just like the 1st amendment. These are rights that were and are believed to be inherent rights (attributable by whatever means necessary, but they said God) and those are protections of those rights. They grant nothing outside of protection from an over reaching government.

Just now, Narcissus said:

No. It is a God given right to protect yourself... even the founders believed so hence the comments about the 2nd amendment. If you don't believe in God, then say your natural law given right or what have you... but the second amendment does not grant you a right... it DEFENDS that inherent right against the government trying to take it.

Well I believe I should be King and I think god agrees with me, I guess I should just waltz upon into Buckingham Palace and take my rightful place, because y'know god told me, you don't need to clarify that of course, just trust me. 
 

So basically, you believe in a right from the 1700's so much that really, why change the laws even if it will save people, I'd rather protect this opinion of another person I've never met and probably know very little about.

I heard in the Radio, the Movtive of the Suspect is a Quarrel with his Family and threatened them

Edited November 6, 20178 yr by Officer GILLETTE ABDI

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

 How silly of me to rely on LAW enforcement to protect me from people breaking the LAW. It's indeed so wrong, I'm glad you opened my eyes on that. 

 

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous by the minute. 

 

 

Yes, it is. I demonstrated that even the supreme court ruled that police are not obligated to protect you. You, rather than admit you were wrong, double down and slip the argument into law breaking rather than protection.

 

Relying on police to protect you is absurd. They will try their best because they are mostly brave men, but they should never be your only line of defense.