100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: It has to stop | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
isaac_dede
on
Wed 07/29/15 02:14 PM
|
|
the diffrence between armored trucks and secret service and the average joe? training and background checks,,, so, in theory, we agree,, these are the same standards that regulations should address with the average joe,,, I completely agree with both, I grew up in a house full of kids (5 brothers, 4 sisters) we always had guns in the house, never one accident. ..(although one occasion im sure it saved our lives, but that's another story), my dad taught us the importance of gun safety, and also safe handling, I had my gun safety course completed at 9 years old, and was legally able to hunt. in the military I had more training on weapons and safety, point is I knew the importance of training, and the dangers associated with guns from a VERY YOUNG age... if you look at the statistics for accidents generally it is from some kid getting into dads guns to show off to friends who have never seen one, and have never been taught how to properly handle a firearm...no training+dangerous equipment=accident waiting to happen, unfortunately now when these accidents happen the blame is placed on an object instead of where it belongs, on both set of parents for not training their children properly |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont know if statistics show anything at all about training of children who have died accidentally
and certainly, the AVERAGE child can be shown a million things but doesnt have the emotional development to think logically in such situations every time but on the rest,, we agree,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont know if statistics show anything at all about training of children who have died accidentally and certainly, the AVERAGE child can be shown a million things but doesnt have the emotional development to think logically in such situations every time but on the rest,, we agree,, That would be a statistic I'd be interested in seeing. I guess I equate it to a child accidentally drowning in a backyard pool, if the parents didn't put in proper safety mechanisms or teach the child to swim, the parents are at fault not the pool. maybe its time to start training the AVERAGE child, and implement a gun safety course in standard school curriculum 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am sure other countries have the same system in place but in Israel, every household has a gun. Every men and women gets drafted into the armed services at 18. They serve a couple of years and then return on a multi-monthly basis. They keep their weapons. There are no stories of crazy shoot outs or homicides. People are properly trained and equipped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Governer Rick Perry said today, when asked about the 2nd amendment, stated that gun violence has dropped dramatically in Texas since the concealed carry law was passed. The liberals said the exact opposite would happen. So ... yes, more guns by the general law abiding public does mean less violence. I bought a concealed carry vest last weekend. this is actually a misleading correlation states have laws, and so do cities, and feds because people cant legally get a gun in one city (within a state) doesnt mean they cant get them in an outlying city these same correlations are made in other places where crime HAPPENS to have decreased with stricter legislation You missed the correlation. LIBERALS screamed that passing the concealed carry law would have citizens shooting it out all over Texas! It didn't happen. The exact opposite happened. Gun crime, the type where the criminal is the only one with the gun, went down. Look at Chicago, Baltimore, and DC. The highest gun violence is in the areas where the strictest gun laws exist. You're misunderstanding the correlation. Texas has lots of people, and tons of open space between the cities and towns. Illinois, Maryland, Virginia, D.C., and Ohio might come close in comparison in acreage but the population density, average wages, job availability, education opportunities have much more to do with gun crimes that liberal politics. Per capita Texas has just as much if not more gun crimes. Statistics don't read as plain English. Theres also the error in self reporting. Texans want guns give em guns you think for a minute they pause on the trigger because they're worried about liberals taking everyone else's guns? The police do the same thing many east coast schools do and fudge the numbers so they can keep their jobs. Arizona's immigration reporting is another example of this. They report fewer immigrants to make it look like their 0tolerance profiling stops are working then when it turns out not in their favor they change the story saying the stats don't reflect reality. Either immigration slowed down there or they don't uphold their own policy. Both cannot be true. If all of Texas were like Houston and El Paso the numbers would be worse. While we're comparing, Chicago and Baltimore are cities. D.C. Is a district, effectively a city. Texas is one of the biggest 3 States in all of the US. Crimes don't occur because laws are stricter, laws get stricter because more crimes occur in a smaller area. If 60 teens get killed by gun crime in Belton or Georgetown in 6 months the people there would be calling for change too. The correlation is simple but I'll make it simpler. LIBERALS screamed that concealed carry would have citizens in gunfights all over Texas! It didn't happen. The opposite happened. Reality vs BS theory. Lets play 'Theory or Fact'. Texas is a State. Fact. Chicago is not a State. Fact. Baltimore is not a State. Fact. Washington D.C. is not a State. Fact People in the State of Texas do not ALL watch the SAME Local News or read the SAME Local newspaper. Fact. People in Chicago, Baltimore, and Washington D.C., respectively, DO watch the SAME Local news and read the SAME Local newspaper. Fact. The people who are calling for measures to reduce gun crimes are appalled at what they see happening so often in our country. --so-- Only 'LIBERALS' are appalled by gun crimes murders mass shootings and HUGE numbers of UNLICENSED guns. Fact? I don't think so. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
isaac_dede
on
Wed 07/29/15 05:48 PM
|
|
..... HUGE numbers of UNLICENSED guns.
Fact? I don't think so. And the people carrying those unlicensed guns are the criminals who don't care whether or not they are breaking the law, not the people fighting for the LEGAL right to carry. Fact! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 07/29/15 06:00 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
alleoops
on
Wed 07/29/15 06:23 PM
|
|
Mother Jones, sure we can believe that liberal site.....not! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we can believe it as much as those sources claiming these things occur by people who have guns illegally,,,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article says 71 total since 1982 to present.. There is probably more than that per year in which 4 or more people are killed by someone driving drunk. I bet the percentage of those driving drunk and obtaining their alcohol legally is higher than the ones that bought their weapons legally. Weapons... Alcohol... Vehicles... None of them can kill a single thing without involving a human. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article says 71 total since 1982 to present.. There is probably more than that per year in which 4 or more people are killed by someone driving drunk. I bet the percentage of those driving drunk and obtaining their alcohol legally is higher than the ones that bought their weapons legally. Weapons... Alcohol... Vehicles... None of them can kill a single thing without involving a human. Ms has cooked the numbers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 07/29/15 06:33 PM
|
|
The article says 71 total since 1982 to present.. There is probably more than that per year in which 4 or more people are killed by someone driving drunk. I bet the percentage of those driving drunk and obtaining their alcohol legally is higher than the ones that bought their weapons legally. Weapons... Alcohol... Vehicles... None of them can kill a single thing without involving a human. but alchohol and vehicles arent manufactured to protect or kill,, people who abuse them together cause fatal consequences guns are CREATED to injure or kill,,, the relevance of the chart is in response to an earlier assertion that most mass killings are happening by individuals who arent concerned with having weapons legally,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know what? I'm more than happy to carry a concealed weapon, because if for no other reason, it's easier to carry my 9mm, than carrying a cop around on my back all day! So based on the statistics noted in earlier posts, the number of shootings is less than 1/100th of 1% of the population (about 28,000 divided by 330,000,000). OF those shootings, about 25% are fatal. So your odds then, as a general member of the population are 1/400th of 1% of being fatally wounded by domestic gunfire in the USA. So 99.06 of the population can breathe a sigh of relief. For 'mass' shootings, statistically they represent .75% or less than 1% of all shootings. Not a seemingly significant number statistically. I would also caution how the term 'mass' is arrived at. For some statisticians it is used when more than one victim is shot. For others, it is the number of people at the scene who COULD HAVE BEEN shot. So if I go to my crack dealers house to cap his a** for ripping me off, and only shoot him, but there's 10 crackheads in the house left untouched, that's still a 'mass shooting'. Also of note, when the cops show up and search the house and the crackheads, and they find guns, they are ALL considered to be drug crime guns. Regardless if it's a shotgun buried under a pile of clothes in the back of a closet, or a Mac 10 on the coffee table next to a bag of rocks. The stats would say they were all guns used in the commission of drug crimes. Beware statistics.... I have yet to hear of 1/100th of a shooting or 1/400th of a gun related homicide. 1 shot is not a mass shooting. It doesn't matter how many people are in the room or crowd. You are right about the guns being connected to drugs if they are found in your crack dealers house but I think he's been selling you meth instead of crack. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article says 71 total since 1982 to present.. There is probably more than that per year in which 4 or more people are killed by someone driving drunk. I bet the percentage of those driving drunk and obtaining their alcohol legally is higher than the ones that bought their weapons legally. Weapons... Alcohol... Vehicles... None of them can kill a single thing without involving a human. but alchohol and vehicles arent manufactured to protect or kill,, people who abuse them together cause fatal consequences guns are CREATED to injure or kill,,, the relevance of the chart is in response to an earlier assertion that most mass killings are happening by individuals who arent concerned with having weapons legally,, This is about mass shootings.. 71 since 1982... You can look at 2 weekends in Chicago and see 71 shootings and I will be willing to bet that the vast majority of weapons were obtained illegally. Why is the mass shooting that occurs far less frequently more important? Is it because the shooters tend to be white and bought the weapons legally? That is what I think.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and I dont believe gun regulation wants to take 'everyones' guns but rather make sure not EVERYONE is nonchalantly armed with anything manufacturers dream up,,, Really doesn't matter what you believe,listen to Obama,the rest of the Gungrabber-Crowd,or perhaps read Crazy Bernie Sanders' Proposals! I have listened to him,, and still havent heard anything REMOTELY close to taking everyones guns' It's called "incrementalism". They have passed 400+ gun laws on the books in the last 100 years. Each time violence occurs involving a firearm everyone has to give a little. Whether it be extra taxes/fees, waiting periods or outright banning some. Look forward to the next couple hundred years and they will be all but banned. In fact we currently have more gun laws on the books than can be effectively upheld. Would more really help this situation? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is historic precedent for reducing gun carry in order to reduce gun crime, throughout the Old West. Every town which was infamous for gun crimes, was "tamed" by gun control laws. Not by having everyone packing. You are right, gun crime has decreased quite steadily since the 90's with a small increase, then decrease again in recent years (crime tends to correlate to economics). But in the statement above you are assuming that gun control was responsible for decreasing crime in "gun free" towns. We do not know that. During that time your local sheriff knew pretty much everybody, and often ruled with an Iron fist. A repeat rapist or a murderer would likely be hung within days of a crime, after a brief local trial. His body was sometimes put on display as a message to potential offenders. Perhaps the same sheriff so quickly to order all citizens to surrender all arms may practice this extreme authority over criminals too. I am not advocating such behavior by any means. But it would potentially and drastically cut crime rates, perhaps much more so than simply taking everyone's guns. Nope, I'm not assuming anything. I'm reporting facts which contradict one of the favored fantasies of the more rabid Second Amendment-as-word-of-god crowd. I am a gun owner too. I'm also a devotee of factually based logic, and not wild emotional nonsense masquerading as patriotism. The Iron Fist Rule which you describe, included what would now be called gun control. My point, is only that allowing anyone and everyone to carry guns, doesn't cause crime to fall. There is no historic support for that claim, and that is what has been claimed in this thread. That some large organization of "liberals" all declared that Texas would erupt in gun battles, is also false. SOME people may have said that, but SOME people say crap no matter what happens. If we are going to discuss a subject, any subject, I want the discussion to be factual and logical. Not just exchanges of emotionalized political bombast and self-worship. I agree that there is no substantial evidence supporting that less gun control causes violent crime to fall. However there is no substantial evidence supporting that increasing gun control causes violent crime to fall either. I suppose we agree, I was just emphasizing the flip side of the argument... My apologies. I desire the same as you; a logical discussion vs slinging slogans and random stats (which can be easily manipulated). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There should not be a single increase in gun regulation in this country until we start enforcing current regulations. Increasing its complexity will not fix it's downfalls. Simple knee-jerk reactions vs critical thinking will get us into trouble in the long run. Eagerness to trade freedom for "safety" will also do the same. There is no evidence that gun regulation or gun control is effective vs gun violence in its entirety (although it may SHIFT certain demographics). Think about it. Drugs are illegal. Almost anybody can get their hands on cocaine or heroin on a street corner. Laws are designed to effect those WILLING to be effected. On the flip side I must admit there is also no real evidence supporting less regulation equating to less gun violence either. Although I do question the wisdom of disarming those who are trained to defend themselves (such as soldiers in a recruiting station). I say we focus on things that can help everyone, most likely curb violence, and few will be opposed to, thereby making it achievable. Hint: Mental healthcare + Cultural influence Probably should take a look at our foreign policy too (But that may offend some people)... The one thing you said well is that we need to enforce current laws. In some places, Chicago, Baltimore, stop and frisk is doing just that. Decreasing the complexity OVER TIME will fix the problems. What kind of sense does it make for locals to have to undergo background checks if they want to purchase or trade for a handgun but make travelling gun shows no no background check no waiting period? That means lower numbers of guns are legally bought sold and possessed. Drop the handgun, waiting period background check licensing and training PERIOD. Guns will still be bought and sold in the U.S. Even gun shows can sell after the waiting period and background checks ARE CLEARED. Buyers make a downpayment, custody is transferred to local FFL dealer. Nobody wants to collect ALL the guns. Stop and frisk policies in place are not taking guns from law abiding licensed owners. If a police officer pulls me over because there was a report of a car matching the description of mine, once he runs my plates checks my insurance and sees the name on my DL all go together, I'm not going to curse him. I'm going to shake his hand and thank him for doing his job. If it was my car that was stolen he would have stopped the person who stole it and got my car back. My DL is legal. I have insurance. My plates and registration are legal. Why would anyone want unknown unaccounted guns sliding around in a trunk somewhere possibly loaded and ready to be sold to the first gang member, thug, teenager, or 'responsible' adult who wants a burner (throw away)? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
germanchoclate1981
on
Wed 07/29/15 09:36 PM
|
|
..... HUGE numbers of UNLICENSED guns.
Fact? I don't think so. And the people carrying those unlicensed guns are the criminals who don't care whether or not they are breaking the law, not the people fighting for the LEGAL right to carry. Fact! You left out the "mass shootings AND" part. IF (any of) YOU bought licensed and use your guns in accordance with the laws you have nothing to worry about. Many people use various means to acquire guns. The thing that's not so great about that is those other than legally acquired guns is when the round bit with the hole is lined up with a person and the triggery thingy gets pulled. That kinda happens a lot. This question goes to everyone. If 100 gun involved homicides happened within 10 miles of YOUR home, would you uproot and leave? Your hometown, your family and friends, your job, your life, your future? Would you PAY to move somewhere you THOUGHT was safer? What if you knew 5 of the people that were murdered? What if one was your child, brother, sister, mother or father? Would you hold the police responsible to PROTECT AND SERVE you? Would you still want people to be able to buy sell and carry guns UNCHECKED? Or, "Sir, may I see your permit? Thank you. Have a nice day." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well the Mother Jones info is interesting only from the standpoint that assault weapons at 20 being listed are the LEAST OFTEN used weapon.
Shotguns, revolvers, and other types of rifles are used more often. Yet it seems the Obama administration wants to ban arguably the least used weapon of the group! Hmmmmmm. Is this unrelenting effort by the WH, to ban the weapon that statistically is used even less often than grandad's old 12 guage pumpgun REALLY the best use of it's resources? I mean c'mon. I carried a .357 wheel gun concealed for several years. My CZ-75 wound up being far less bulky, and with even one double mag pouch I had 43 rounds. My revolver required a triple speed loader case, plus the six rounds in the gun and only gave me only 24 rounds. It was a hell of a lot more cumbersome to haul around all day than a pistol, but even the pistol and ammo weighed out at like 3 pounds. Either one of THOSE options however was used more often than assault rifles in the Mother Jones stats. Sooooooo, America. Stop letting people BS you on banning assault rifles. MAYBE instead, have politicians spend a couple bucks to find out WHY people are so quick to settle disputes with a firearm instead of maybe just flapping their gums at each other, throwing a punch, or spraying the idiot neighbor with a garden hose instead of a Glock? Some USEFUL studies on gun USE using the actual shooters seems to be a hell of a lot less money than the hundreds of millions spent by both sides of the gun control debate. |
|
|
|
|
