I disagree. If any of the factory workers had a CC he might have killed 1, maybe 2 people I'm thinking before he was taken out. If anything, at least the people would have stood a chance.
Your point? How do you plan to implement it here, how do you plan to get rid of all the guns, how do you plan to keep guns manufactures in Mexico/South America out of Us hands.. (Notice England and Australia are islands). How do you plan to deal with the massive gun industry and the jobs that will be lost?
Do you have answers for any of that?
OS
Lifer
- Oct 11, 1999
- 15,581
- 1
- 76
If he had no gun and had to resort to some other equipment like a hammer, knife, or appendages as you said do you think the same number of deaths would have occurred or would it have been easier to stop him?
It's pretty hard to defend yourself when someone is shooting you from maybe 10-15 feet where just a single hit can put you down. In all these other cases he would have gotten to maybe one person in a factory setting where nobody is isolated.
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,888
- 2,788
- 136
Seeing as the OP has been thoroughly pwned, I'm not going to add much. But, one thing I'd like from the OP is for him to tell us what the crime rate is of CCW holders. I'm sure he has these numbers readily available, I doubt he'd be speaking in total ignorance here.
sportage
Lifer
- Feb 1, 2008
- 11,492
- 3,162
- 136
Here is a test to you all...
Next time you're in a video rental store, walk down the new release wall and look for
video boxes with pictures of guns, pictures of bullets or pictures of violence.
I'd bet 75%, if not more, of the video boxes have photos of guns or weapons.
And you wonder why kids and adults think violence and killing is the answer to ones problems.
Next time you're in a video rental store, walk down the new release wall and look for
video boxes with pictures of guns, pictures of bullets or pictures of violence.
I'd bet 75%, if not more, of the video boxes have photos of guns or weapons.
And you wonder why kids and adults think violence and killing is the answer to ones problems.
Owned? I think not. My last response was to Halik and I haven't seen him since. Others are just regurgitating earlier statements. My points still stand. If you ban guns and make them extremely difficult to get (by civilians and criminals), you wouldn't have gun-related problems.
Taking away guns also didn't save countless cancer patients. Taking away guns was meant to prevent gun-related crimes. I never thought people could be so dense until I started this gun thread.
No it wouldn't. There's no way to prevent someone getting a weapon if they want one. The only option is to support individual rights and liberties while allowing innocent people the possibility of defending themselves against the occasional wacko.
You're 100% wrong. Hasn't been in 40 years, in 48 states, with millions of people carrying. Permit holders almost never commit crimes. Statistically they're safer than even police officers. In other words, you're doomfearing without a shred of supporting statistical evidence.
As a matter of fact, yes. All violence, including gun violence, has been reducing for decades despite increasing gun ownership, concealed carry, etc.
And yet in those other nations people just find other ways. For instance suicide in Japan, crime rates in the UK, etc. The bans effectively do nothing, as supported by pretty much all modern scholarship. Check out the National Academy of Sciences review of the impact of gun control if you are interested.
Actually it's the worst place to start, since blanket outlawing would cause an immediate armed revolution. The results would catastrophic, unlike any crisis this nation has ever faced before.
But that purpose is neither good nor bad...it depends entirely on how it's used. The purpose of fire is to turn a substance into heat energy. If you burn someone alive it's probably bad, but if you use it to keep warm it's useful. No need to ban fire, just punish those who USE it for ill. The same is true for guns. When used for defense they're WONDERFUL, for target shooting neutral, and for harming innocents they're bad. Just punish those who choose the last.
Fire is found in the natural world. Guns are not. Guns are man-made. Just like rockets are man-made. Just as other types of weapons made to maim or kill. Their purpose are always good. No one is disputing that. We are arguing whether it is better to take away guns entirely from civilians and keep it in the realm of the security services. The strongest argument here are 1) defense and 2) criminals. To counter 1, I can simply say we have a myraid amount of security forces from the police on up. As for the defense that criminals will get it so why not civilians? Well, if we made it next to impossible for them, what's the problem? If criminals raided an armory and stole some tanks they used to rob a bank/house, does that mean everyone should have access to tanks just in case? No.
Always bad to take them on four principles:
1. It violates our guaranteed rights from federal Constitution, state Constitutions, statutory guarantee, and one could argue the even higher source of 'god-granted' rights.
2. There are few negatives that are mitigated through the abolishment of firearms. This is shown through most recent scholarly research.
3. There are extraordinary benefits of private ownership, like the hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses every year.
4. Control. If only governments or private security have weapons then everyone else is immediately their slave. Period. ONLY with the ability to defend oneself are we a) freed from the need of paying for our individual right to defense, and b) capable of overthrowing those who would claim excessive power.
To counter your arguments:
The police do not prevent crime, they report on crimes that have already occurred. The police are there to tell your loved ones how you died. Furthermore there is NO REASON why an individual should be REQUIRED to pay someone else to defend them, when in reality they cannot. Moreover the courts have already ruled that there is no requirement for an officer or anyone else to protect someone. This means that no one will ever have the motivation to save you that you have. Money only goes so far after all...and as already stated they won't be there when it's needed anyway.
You cannot make something impossible to get. There was a constitutional amendment against drinking during prohibition. More money was spent on stopping drinking during the prohibition campaign than you can possibly imagine, and yet it did nothing. You CANNOT stop people from doing something illegal if they want to. Name ONE THING that has been successfully banned through laws in this country. It CANNOT EVER BE DONE. Period.
Guns were taken from all civilians in England, including the criminal class? What else did this English anti-gun law mandate? What were the directives?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter