Honest and open debate on gun control

[PratchettFan]

Ok, you have no suggestions or goals. You just wanted to make a point having nothing to do with the thread. Consider it made.

I have plenty of suggestions. You could go an read my post where I made plenty of suggestions.

However for some reason no one chose to respond to my suggestions at all.

What I was doing was getting past first base in which some people seemed to have a problem with what was being spoken about. So that was clarification.

I take it you agree with me.

I saw no suggestions at all. It's possible I missed them. But I also didn't see you respond to my post, so let me reiterate what I expect to see in terms of any suggestions to limit my rights:

1) State the goal
2) State the suggestion
3) Show how the suggestion will actually achieve the goal

Post 149. Jeez, I've posted that I wrote this three times now and still no replies to it.

I read it. So let's start from the beginning.... What is the goal? What is it you are trying to achieve?

 

[2aguy]

I read it. There was absolutely nothing in it about arms - which is the subject of the thread. You then went off on what the 2nd amendment meant and how it is not unlimited. Your argument had no connection to your suggestions.

But, if it will help. I have no problem with what you are suggesting. I just see no relevance to this thread.

Flipping hell.

So what you're suggesting is this. That you want people to come up with ways of taking guns away from people without taking guns away from people? So, you sit there thinking yourself superior because no one can do something that is impossible? Right? So this is all a waste of time?

Actually we're talking about gun control in another sense. I get that you don't get it. If you want to reduce gun crime (I'm not sure many people actually do) then there are ways to do it without even getting near guns.

It's gun control. It's controlling how people use guns. It's stopping "bad people" from getting guns by reducing the number of "bad people" because they have had a decent education.

You're thinking very simplistically. I'm thinking pro-actively. But then the right doesn't seem so interested with pro-active.

I'm sorry you just don't get what I'm saying. I'm sorry thousands of people will die because too many people don't get what I'm saying. You don't have any answers as to how to reduce gun violence. I do. You dismiss them, fine. You have to put up with thousands on people getting killed, maybe one of them will be you or a member of your family or a friend of yours.

The point about what the 2A means was in response to the argument of whether fully automatic weapons were protected by the 2A or not. They're not. So, you can ban fully automatic weapons without infringing on the rights protected in the 2A.

I made my point. You don't get it, I understand this. It was a separate issue.

And how often are fully automatic weapons used in crime in America, even though they are available? Our criminals don't use them because they don't need them...so banning them would be pointless and would not stop criminal from getting them anyway.

 

[PratchettFan]

I read it. There was absolutely nothing in it about arms - which is the subject of the thread. You then went off on what the 2nd amendment meant and how it is not unlimited. Your argument had no connection to your suggestions.

But, if it will help. I have no problem with what you are suggesting. I just see no relevance to this thread.

Flipping hell.

So what you're suggesting is this. That you want people to come up with ways of taking guns away from people without taking guns away from people? So, you sit there thinking yourself superior because no one can do something that is impossible? Right? So this is all a waste of time?

Actually we're talking about gun control in another sense. I get that you don't get it. If you want to reduce gun crime (I'm not sure many people actually do) then there are ways to do it without even getting near guns.

It's gun control. It's controlling how people use guns. It's stopping "bad people" from getting guns by reducing the number of "bad people" because they have had a decent education.

You're thinking very simplistically. I'm thinking pro-actively. But then the right doesn't seem so interested with pro-active.

I'm sorry you just don't get what I'm saying. I'm sorry thousands of people will die because too many people don't get what I'm saying. You don't have any answers as to how to reduce gun violence. I do. You dismiss them, fine. You have to put up with thousands on people getting killed, maybe one of them will be you or a member of your family or a friend of yours.

The point about what the 2A means was in response to the argument of whether fully automatic weapons were protected by the 2A or not. They're not. So, you can ban fully automatic weapons without infringing on the rights protected in the 2A.

I made my point. You don't get it, I understand this. It was a separate issue.

This is the definition of "pro-active" - doing anything you can think of when you can't think of anything useful to do. That fits your position perfectly.

I am not looking for ways to take guns away from people. I am looking for solutions that actually work. I have yet to hear a single suggestion that works. Now you have suggested improvements in education to reduce the number of "bad guys". Hell, I'm all for improving our education system. But what exactly does that have to do with taking guns away from people? There is no connection. There are lots of suggestions I could make to improve our justice system, reduce the amount of crime, etc. but not a single one of them has anything at all to do with the 2nd amendment. And since this thread is about the 2nd amendment, it seems pointless to bring them up here.

So I assume you agree with me that limiting access to guns is a useless exercise.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ok, you have no suggestions or goals. You just wanted to make a point having nothing to do with the thread. Consider it made.

I have plenty of suggestions. You could go an read my post where I made plenty of suggestions.

However for some reason no one chose to respond to my suggestions at all.

What I was doing was getting past first base in which some people seemed to have a problem with what was being spoken about. So that was clarification.

I take it you agree with me.

I saw no suggestions at all. It's possible I missed them. But I also didn't see you respond to my post, so let me reiterate what I expect to see in terms of any suggestions to limit my rights:

1) State the goal
2) State the suggestion
3) Show how the suggestion will actually achieve the goal

Post 149. Jeez, I've posted that I wrote this three times now and still no replies to it.

I read it. So let's start from the beginning.... What is the goal? What is it you are trying to achieve?

Why do left wing people want gun control? They want gun control because the murder rate is WAY too high for a first world country. You look at countries like the UK, where guns are generally controlled though people can get guns, just not so easily and you have to have a license which isn't as easy to get as in the US, the murder rate is 1/4 that of the US. Why is that?

One of the first instincts of the left is to blame guns. The right say "guns don't kill people, people do".

So if it is really the people who kill and not the guns, then you need to start with the people.

Who is more likely to kill someone?

I'm going to say someone who is less educated is more likely to kill someone (this isn't me saying higher educated people don't kill people and it's not me saying lower educated people will kill someone. I'm saying an individual who is liable to kill someone is more likely to do so if they get a poorer education than if they got a better education), and also someone earns less money and has less opportunities is more likely to kill someone, and someone who has a higher degree of mental issues and problems is more likely to kill someone.

So, three topics.

https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0351.pdf

This is for prisoners under sentence of death. It's what I could find, it presents a little of what I'm trying to say.

In 2009 176 of the 3,173 prisoners sentence to death had less than 7 years of schooling. 1,097 had 12 years, 238 had more than 12 years. So, about 1/3 of death row prisoners had 12 years or more of education. That means about 2/3 didn't.

This doesn't tell us the quality of the education, but you can see that many people who end up on death row haven't finished education. They don't have the opportunities afforded to those who have finished education.

1,393 of these were black people. Black people suffer poverty far more than white people. 7% of white people compared to 25% of black people are in poverty. So, poverty also increases the chances someone who might kill others will kill others.

US Prisons Home to 10 Times as Many Mentally Ill Al Jazeera America

"There are 10 times more mentally ill Americans in prisons and jails than in state psychiatric hospitals, a report published Tuesday found — adding that those individuals’ conditions often deteriorate while they are incarcerated."

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf

"At midyear 2005 more than half of all prison and jail inmates had a mental health problem, including 705,600 inmates in State prisons, 78,800 in Federal prisons, and 479,900 in local jails. These estimates represented 56% of State prisoners, 45% of Federal prisoners, and 64% of jail inmates."

Why so many people with mental health problems in prison? Well, because they're not treated so the state spends more money locking them up than they would have done had they spent it on mental health care.

Okay, so three problems that cause crime, that cause murders, that just cause society problems.

What's the solution? Take guns away from such people? Sure, it might help. Sometimes such people go crazy for a short period of time. With a gun they kill, with a knife maybe not, with no weapon they almost certainly won't.

However the OP was based around not taking away guns from society.

So how do you deal with this? Well you solve many of the problems that put people in a bad situation in the first place. The US is a bad place to grow up in a poor neighborhood, especially if you're in an inner city area. Education is often extremely poor, opportunities are bad. A cycle of poverty based around poor education is leading to more divorces among poor people which in turn leads to kids being left alone and searching for family elsewhere, like in gangs, and so on.

Unless people start have a pro-active approach to educating children from all parts of society to become decent adults with plenty of work potential and the education to make it happen and an education that allows them to be health individuals, then the US will continue to have massive gun problems.

So, I'd say this is gun control, of sorts.

 

[PratchettFan]

Ok, you have no suggestions or goals. You just wanted to make a point having nothing to do with the thread. Consider it made.

I have plenty of suggestions. You could go an read my post where I made plenty of suggestions.

However for some reason no one chose to respond to my suggestions at all.

What I was doing was getting past first base in which some people seemed to have a problem with what was being spoken about. So that was clarification.

I take it you agree with me.

I saw no suggestions at all. It's possible I missed them. But I also didn't see you respond to my post, so let me reiterate what I expect to see in terms of any suggestions to limit my rights:

1) State the goal
2) State the suggestion
3) Show how the suggestion will actually achieve the goal

Post 149. Jeez, I've posted that I wrote this three times now and still no replies to it.

I read it. So let's start from the beginning.... What is the goal? What is it you are trying to achieve?

Why do left wing people want gun control? They want gun control because the murder rate is WAY too high for a first world country. You look at countries like the UK, where guns are generally controlled though people can get guns, just not so easily and you have to have a license which isn't as easy to get as in the US, the murder rate is 1/4 that of the US. Why is that?

One of the first instincts of the left is to blame guns. The right say "guns don't kill people, people do".

So if it is really the people who kill and not the guns, then you need to start with the people.

Who is more likely to kill someone?

I'm going to say someone who is less educated is more likely to kill someone (this isn't me saying higher educated people don't kill people and it's not me saying lower educated people will kill someone. I'm saying an individual who is liable to kill someone is more likely to do so if they get a poorer education than if they got a better education), and also someone earns less money and has less opportunities is more likely to kill someone, and someone who has a higher degree of mental issues and problems is more likely to kill someone.

So, three topics.

https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0351.pdf

This is for prisoners under sentence of death. It's what I could find, it presents a little of what I'm trying to say.

In 2009 176 of the 3,173 prisoners sentence to death had less than 7 years of schooling. 1,097 had 12 years, 238 had more than 12 years. So, about 1/3 of death row prisoners had 12 years or more of education. That means about 2/3 didn't.

This doesn't tell us the quality of the education, but you can see that many people who end up on death row haven't finished education. They don't have the opportunities afforded to those who have finished education.

1,393 of these were black people. Black people suffer poverty far more than white people. 7% of white people compared to 25% of black people are in poverty. So, poverty also increases the chances someone who might kill others will kill others.

US Prisons Home to 10 Times as Many Mentally Ill Al Jazeera America

"There are 10 times more mentally ill Americans in prisons and jails than in state psychiatric hospitals, a report published Tuesday found — adding that those individuals’ conditions often deteriorate while they are incarcerated."

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf

"At midyear 2005 more than half of all prison and jail inmates had a mental health problem, including 705,600 inmates in State prisons, 78,800 in Federal prisons, and 479,900 in local jails. These estimates represented 56% of State prisoners, 45% of Federal prisoners, and 64% of jail inmates."

Why so many people with mental health problems in prison? Well, because they're not treated so the state spends more money locking them up than they would have done had they spent it on mental health care.

Okay, so three problems that cause crime, that cause murders, that just cause society problems.

What's the solution? Take guns away from such people? Sure, it might help. Sometimes such people go crazy for a short period of time. With a gun they kill, with a knife maybe not, with no weapon they almost certainly won't.

However the OP was based around not taking away guns from society.

So how do you deal with this? Well you solve many of the problems that put people in a bad situation in the first place. The US is a bad place to grow up in a poor neighborhood, especially if you're in an inner city area. Education is often extremely poor, opportunities are bad. A cycle of poverty based around poor education is leading to more divorces among poor people which in turn leads to kids being left alone and searching for family elsewhere, like in gangs, and so on.

Unless people start have a pro-active approach to educating children from all parts of society to become decent adults with plenty of work potential and the education to make it happen and an education that allows them to be health individuals, then the US will continue to have massive gun problems.

So, I'd say this is gun control, of sorts.

So you agree that gun control is useless. As I said, I'm all for improving education.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And how often are fully automatic weapons used in crime in America, even though they are available? Our criminals don't use them because they don't need them...so banning them would be pointless and would not stop criminal from getting them anyway.

Fully automatic weapons are probably rarely used by criminals because they find it harder to get a hold of them.

However, look at what happened in Tunisia the other day. If you want to kill on a larger scale, fully automatics would be the way to go out with a bang.

Seeing what Bush has done for the security of the world, do you really think it's a good idea.

The other point is, if criminals don't bother with fully automatics, then why does anyone else need them?

I mean, you want to shoot a deer, a fully automatic isn't really the answer, is it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

So you agree that gun control is useless. As I said, I'm all for improving education.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying in light of the OP, education would be a good choice in helping to reduce gun crime, seeing as banning guns is not an option.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I read it. There was absolutely nothing in it about arms - which is the subject of the thread. You then went off on what the 2nd amendment meant and how it is not unlimited. Your argument had no connection to your suggestions.

But, if it will help. I have no problem with what you are suggesting. I just see no relevance to this thread.

Flipping hell.

So what you're suggesting is this. That you want people to come up with ways of taking guns away from people without taking guns away from people? So, you sit there thinking yourself superior because no one can do something that is impossible? Right? So this is all a waste of time?

Actually we're talking about gun control in another sense. I get that you don't get it. If you want to reduce gun crime (I'm not sure many people actually do) then there are ways to do it without even getting near guns.

It's gun control. It's controlling how people use guns. It's stopping "bad people" from getting guns by reducing the number of "bad people" because they have had a decent education.

You're thinking very simplistically. I'm thinking pro-actively. But then the right doesn't seem so interested with pro-active.

I'm sorry you just don't get what I'm saying. I'm sorry thousands of people will die because too many people don't get what I'm saying. You don't have any answers as to how to reduce gun violence. I do. You dismiss them, fine. You have to put up with thousands on people getting killed, maybe one of them will be you or a member of your family or a friend of yours.

The point about what the 2A means was in response to the argument of whether fully automatic weapons were protected by the 2A or not. They're not. So, you can ban fully automatic weapons without infringing on the rights protected in the 2A.

I made my point. You don't get it, I understand this. It was a separate issue.

This is the definition of "pro-active" - doing anything you can think of when you can't think of anything useful to do. That fits your position perfectly.

I am not looking for ways to take guns away from people. I am looking for solutions that actually work. I have yet to hear a single suggestion that works. Now you have suggested improvements in education to reduce the number of "bad guys". Hell, I'm all for improving our education system. But what exactly does that have to do with taking guns away from people? There is no connection. There are lots of suggestions I could make to improve our justice system, reduce the amount of crime, etc. but not a single one of them has anything at all to do with the 2nd amendment. And since this thread is about the 2nd amendment, it seems pointless to bring them up here.

So I assume you agree with me that limiting access to guns is a useless exercise.

Again, you're being obtuse. It doesn't help your cause at all.

 

[PratchettFan]

So you agree that gun control is useless. As I said, I'm all for improving education.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying in light of the OP, education would be a good choice in helping to reduce gun crime, seeing as banning guns is not an option.

That sounds like what you are saying to me. Education may well reduce crime. Frankly, I think repealing all drug laws would reduce it a heck of a lot more and certainly remove a major money source for criminal gangs. But you are clearly agreeing that gun control won't do it.

 

[PratchettFan]

I read it. There was absolutely nothing in it about arms - which is the subject of the thread. You then went off on what the 2nd amendment meant and how it is not unlimited. Your argument had no connection to your suggestions.

But, if it will help. I have no problem with what you are suggesting. I just see no relevance to this thread.

Flipping hell.

So what you're suggesting is this. That you want people to come up with ways of taking guns away from people without taking guns away from people? So, you sit there thinking yourself superior because no one can do something that is impossible? Right? So this is all a waste of time?

Actually we're talking about gun control in another sense. I get that you don't get it. If you want to reduce gun crime (I'm not sure many people actually do) then there are ways to do it without even getting near guns.

It's gun control. It's controlling how people use guns. It's stopping "bad people" from getting guns by reducing the number of "bad people" because they have had a decent education.

You're thinking very simplistically. I'm thinking pro-actively. But then the right doesn't seem so interested with pro-active.

I'm sorry you just don't get what I'm saying. I'm sorry thousands of people will die because too many people don't get what I'm saying. You don't have any answers as to how to reduce gun violence. I do. You dismiss them, fine. You have to put up with thousands on people getting killed, maybe one of them will be you or a member of your family or a friend of yours.

The point about what the 2A means was in response to the argument of whether fully automatic weapons were protected by the 2A or not. They're not. So, you can ban fully automatic weapons without infringing on the rights protected in the 2A.

I made my point. You don't get it, I understand this. It was a separate issue.

This is the definition of "pro-active" - doing anything you can think of when you can't think of anything useful to do. That fits your position perfectly.

I am not looking for ways to take guns away from people. I am looking for solutions that actually work. I have yet to hear a single suggestion that works. Now you have suggested improvements in education to reduce the number of "bad guys". Hell, I'm all for improving our education system. But what exactly does that have to do with taking guns away from people? There is no connection. There are lots of suggestions I could make to improve our justice system, reduce the amount of crime, etc. but not a single one of them has anything at all to do with the 2nd amendment. And since this thread is about the 2nd amendment, it seems pointless to bring them up here.

So I assume you agree with me that limiting access to guns is a useless exercise.

Again, you're being obtuse. It doesn't help your cause at all.

No. You are being irrational.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So you agree that gun control is useless. As I said, I'm all for improving education.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying in light of the OP, education would be a good choice in helping to reduce gun crime, seeing as banning guns is not an option.

That sounds like what you are saying to me. Education may well reduce crime. Frankly, I think repealing all drug laws would reduce it a heck of a lot more and certainly remove a major money source for criminal gangs. But you are clearly agreeing that gun control won't do it.

No, I'm not saying taking guns away from people wouldn't do it. I think taking guns away from people could reduce the murder rate quite a bit. However I think education is also a great idea for helping society in general.

I don't ever thing one thing will suddenly solve all the problems.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I read it. There was absolutely nothing in it about arms - which is the subject of the thread. You then went off on what the 2nd amendment meant and how it is not unlimited. Your argument had no connection to your suggestions.

But, if it will help. I have no problem with what you are suggesting. I just see no relevance to this thread.

Flipping hell.

So what you're suggesting is this. That you want people to come up with ways of taking guns away from people without taking guns away from people? So, you sit there thinking yourself superior because no one can do something that is impossible? Right? So this is all a waste of time?

Actually we're talking about gun control in another sense. I get that you don't get it. If you want to reduce gun crime (I'm not sure many people actually do) then there are ways to do it without even getting near guns.

It's gun control. It's controlling how people use guns. It's stopping "bad people" from getting guns by reducing the number of "bad people" because they have had a decent education.

You're thinking very simplistically. I'm thinking pro-actively. But then the right doesn't seem so interested with pro-active.

I'm sorry you just don't get what I'm saying. I'm sorry thousands of people will die because too many people don't get what I'm saying. You don't have any answers as to how to reduce gun violence. I do. You dismiss them, fine. You have to put up with thousands on people getting killed, maybe one of them will be you or a member of your family or a friend of yours.

The point about what the 2A means was in response to the argument of whether fully automatic weapons were protected by the 2A or not. They're not. So, you can ban fully automatic weapons without infringing on the rights protected in the 2A.

I made my point. You don't get it, I understand this. It was a separate issue.

This is the definition of "pro-active" - doing anything you can think of when you can't think of anything useful to do. That fits your position perfectly.

I am not looking for ways to take guns away from people. I am looking for solutions that actually work. I have yet to hear a single suggestion that works. Now you have suggested improvements in education to reduce the number of "bad guys". Hell, I'm all for improving our education system. But what exactly does that have to do with taking guns away from people? There is no connection. There are lots of suggestions I could make to improve our justice system, reduce the amount of crime, etc. but not a single one of them has anything at all to do with the 2nd amendment. And since this thread is about the 2nd amendment, it seems pointless to bring them up here.

So I assume you agree with me that limiting access to guns is a useless exercise.

Again, you're being obtuse. It doesn't help your cause at all.

No. You are being irrational.

Do you want a slagging match or something?

 

[2aguy]

And how often are fully automatic weapons used in crime in America, even though they are available? Our criminals don't use them because they don't need them...so banning them would be pointless and would not stop criminal from getting them anyway.

Fully automatic weapons are probably rarely used by criminals because they find it harder to get a hold of them.

However, look at what happened in Tunisia the other day. If you want to kill on a larger scale, fully automatics would be the way to go out with a bang.

Seeing what Bush has done for the security of the world, do you really think it's a good idea.

The other point is, if criminals don't bother with fully automatics, then why does anyone else need them?

I mean, you want to shoot a deer, a fully automatic isn't really the answer, is it?

Fully automatic weapons are probably rarely used by criminals because they find it harder to get a hold of them.

No....fully automatic weapons aren't used because pistols are much easier to conceal and if they wanted fully automatic rifles they could get them just as easily as they get them in Europe which has stricter gun control laws than we do.

However, look at what happened in Tunisia the other day. If you want to kill on a larger scale, fully automatics would be the way to go out with a bang.

Weapons are tightly controlled in Tunisia, and fully automatic weapons are illegal in Tunisia....and the reason so many were killed is because they were all disarmed. IF the shooter had been shot at then lives would have been saved.

Seeing what Bush has done for the security of the world, do you really think it's a good idea.

the world was much more secure under Bush, libya gave up their WMD and was subdued, dittos Iraq, Afganistan and even Iran....now with everyone knowing how stupid and weak obama is we have chaos........

The other point is, if criminals don't bother with fully automatics, then why does anyone else need them?

Because they want them and have broken no laws. We have mass transportation, so why do people need cars. And on top of that the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to arm the people to keep the government on good behavior., not hunting...if the military can have fully automatic weapons, then the people who own the military, the tax payers get them if they want them. We don't serve the military, the military serves us.

 

[2aguy]

So you agree that gun control is useless. As I said, I'm all for improving education.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying in light of the OP, education would be a good choice in helping to reduce gun crime, seeing as banning guns is not an option.

That sounds like what you are saying to me. Education may well reduce crime. Frankly, I think repealing all drug laws would reduce it a heck of a lot more and certainly remove a major money source for criminal gangs. But you are clearly agreeing that gun control won't do it.

No, I'm not saying taking guns away from people wouldn't do it. I think taking guns away from people could reduce the murder rate quite a bit. However I think education is also a great idea for helping society in general.

I don't ever thing one thing will suddenly solve all the problems.

No...taking guns away from people doesn't decrease gun violence....a police state reduces gun violence or cultural pacifism like they used to have in Europe. There are so many countries with extreme gun control including gun bans on possession by citizens that have gun murder rates far higher than we do.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And how often are fully automatic weapons used in crime in America, even though they are available? Our criminals don't use them because they don't need them...so banning them would be pointless and would not stop criminal from getting them anyway.

Fully automatic weapons are probably rarely used by criminals because they find it harder to get a hold of them.

However, look at what happened in Tunisia the other day. If you want to kill on a larger scale, fully automatics would be the way to go out with a bang.

Seeing what Bush has done for the security of the world, do you really think it's a good idea.

The other point is, if criminals don't bother with fully automatics, then why does anyone else need them?

I mean, you want to shoot a deer, a fully automatic isn't really the answer, is it?

Fully automatic weapons are probably rarely used by criminals because they find it harder to get a hold of them.

No....fully automatic weapons aren't used because pistols are much easier to conceal and if they wanted fully automatic rifles they could get them just as easily as they get them in Europe which has stricter gun control laws than we do.

However, look at what happened in Tunisia the other day. If you want to kill on a larger scale, fully automatics would be the way to go out with a bang.

Weapons are tightly controlled in Tunisia, and fully automatic weapons are illegal in Tunisia....and the reason so many were killed is because they were all disarmed. IF the shooter had been shot at then lives would have been saved.

Seeing what Bush has done for the security of the world, do you really think it's a good idea.

the world was much more secure under Bush, libya gave up their WMD and was subdued, dittos Iraq, Afganistan and even Iran....now with everyone knowing how stupid and weak obama is we have chaos........

The other point is, if criminals don't bother with fully automatics, then why does anyone else need them?

Because they want them and have broken no laws. We have mass transportation, so why do people need cars. And on top of that the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to arm the people to keep the government on good behavior., not hunting...if the military can have fully automatic weapons, then the people who own the military, the tax payers get them if they want them. We don't serve the military, the military serves us.

Unless of course you have an umbrella with which to hide your fully automatic weapon, a la the guy from Tunisia. Oh, no, that would never happen. Only it did.
So what if guns are banned in Tunisia, I hardly think it would be difficult for a person to actually get a gun in Tunisia.

The world was more secure under Bush. Er..... without Bush ISIS might not have existed, the Madrid bombings, London bombings, Paris killing, and many other such attacks. Iraq is a mess, Afghanistan is a mess, Syria is a mess, Egypt has been a mess, Libya is a bit of a mess, Tunisia is a bit of a mess.

But hey, this is getting off topic, we should just agree that you're looking through extremely rose tinted glasses.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No...taking guns away from people doesn't decrease gun violence....a police state reduces gun violence or cultural pacifism like they used to have in Europe. There are so many countries with extreme gun control including gun bans on possession by citizens that have gun murder rates far higher than we do.

Maybe you need to go look at murder statistics in countries which don't have guns as normal. You'll find the US is top on the list of murders for first world countries by a long way.

Yes, there are countries with gun control who have higher murder rates. However they're not first world countries. If you can't figure out their problems, and not willing to understand them, then you'll simply come to the wrong conclusions.

I was in South Africa last year many times. You go to a big city like Jo'burg, Pretoria, Durban etc, it'll scare the crap out of you. Guns exist, they don't need to be legal. It's Africa. The govt is corrupt, all politicians are on the take, more or less, education sucks, everything sucks, because the govt is working for the bank balances of themselves and not for the people. The big wild animals, like elephants etc, are dying out because of the govt.

To compare this situation to the US is ridiculous.

 

[2aguy]

And how often are fully automatic weapons used in crime in America, even though they are available? Our criminals don't use them because they don't need them...so banning them would be pointless and would not stop criminal from getting them anyway.

Fully automatic weapons are probably rarely used by criminals because they find it harder to get a hold of them.

However, look at what happened in Tunisia the other day. If you want to kill on a larger scale, fully automatics would be the way to go out with a bang.

Seeing what Bush has done for the security of the world, do you really think it's a good idea.

The other point is, if criminals don't bother with fully automatics, then why does anyone else need them?

I mean, you want to shoot a deer, a fully automatic isn't really the answer, is it?

Fully automatic weapons are probably rarely used by criminals because they find it harder to get a hold of them.

No....fully automatic weapons aren't used because pistols are much easier to conceal and if they wanted fully automatic rifles they could get them just as easily as they get them in Europe which has stricter gun control laws than we do.

However, look at what happened in Tunisia the other day. If you want to kill on a larger scale, fully automatics would be the way to go out with a bang.

Weapons are tightly controlled in Tunisia, and fully automatic weapons are illegal in Tunisia....and the reason so many were killed is because they were all disarmed. IF the shooter had been shot at then lives would have been saved.

Seeing what Bush has done for the security of the world, do you really think it's a good idea.

the world was much more secure under Bush, libya gave up their WMD and was subdued, dittos Iraq, Afganistan and even Iran....now with everyone knowing how stupid and weak obama is we have chaos........

The other point is, if criminals don't bother with fully automatics, then why does anyone else need them?

Because they want them and have broken no laws. We have mass transportation, so why do people need cars. And on top of that the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to arm the people to keep the government on good behavior., not hunting...if the military can have fully automatic weapons, then the people who own the military, the tax payers get them if they want them. We don't serve the military, the military serves us.

Unless of course you have an umbrella with which to hide your fully automatic weapon, a la the guy from Tunisia. Oh, no, that would never happen. Only it did.
So what if guns are banned in Tunisia, I hardly think it would be difficult for a person to actually get a gun in Tunisia.

The world was more secure under Bush. Er..... without Bush ISIS might not have existed, the Madrid bombings, London bombings, Paris killing, and many other such attacks. Iraq is a mess, Afghanistan is a mess, Syria is a mess, Egypt has been a mess, Libya is a bit of a mess, Tunisia is a bit of a mess.

But hey, this is getting off topic, we should just agree that you're looking through extremely rose tinted glasses.

isis grew because obama pulled our troops out...unlike any other place in the world, like Germany, Italy, Japan,.....we still have troops there from World War 2 and they are peaceful........Irag and Afghanistan were also stable.....it all fell apart after obama came in and started apologizing for the U.S.

The world has gone to shit under obama's management, not Bush's.....

If guns are banned in Tunisia, and Europe and their criminals and terrorists get them easily, you are just making the case that gun laws don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

 

[2aguy]

No...taking guns away from people doesn't decrease gun violence....a police state reduces gun violence or cultural pacifism like they used to have in Europe. There are so many countries with extreme gun control including gun bans on possession by citizens that have gun murder rates far higher than we do.

Maybe you need to go look at murder statistics in countries which don't have guns as normal. You'll find the US is top on the list of murders for first world countries by a long way.

Yes, there are countries with gun control who have higher murder rates. However they're not first world countries. If you can't figure out their problems, and not willing to understand them, then you'll simply come to the wrong conclusions.

I was in South Africa last year many times. You go to a big city like Jo'burg, Pretoria, Durban etc, it'll scare the crap out of you. Guns exist, they don't need to be legal. It's Africa. The govt is corrupt, all politicians are on the take, more or less, education sucks, everything sucks, because the govt is working for the bank balances of themselves and not for the people. The big wild animals, like elephants etc, are dying out because of the govt.

To compare this situation to the US is ridiculous.

Sorry, that first world distinction does not work....you guys say if you put strict gun laws in place gun violence will go down......they have extreme gun control in most 3rd world countries and gun murder rates that are way beyond the U.S.....so gun laws aren't the issue....passive populations lead to lower crime rates in Europe, and Japan......

European criminals get guns easily, they just don't use them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

isis grew because obama pulled our troops out...unlike any other place in the world, like Germany, Italy, Japan,.....we still have troops there from World War 2 and they are peaceful........Irag and Afghanistan were also stable.....it all fell apart after obama came in and started apologizing for the U.S.

The world has gone to shit under obama's management, not Bush's.....

If guns are banned in Tunisia, and Europe and their criminals and terrorists get them easily, you are just making the case that gun laws don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Are you freaking serious?

ISIS has been in development since the Soviets were in Afghanistan. They became far more adept at what they were doing with practice in Afghanistan after 2001 and then in Iraq from 2003 they were getting really good at it.

Obama pulled out troops because BUSH signed the order and the Iraqs wanted the US out.

The instability in Iraq started when Bremer A) got Bush to give him sole power in running the country and B) he disbanded the Iraqi army and police, making many men trying to make a living unemployed. The only people willing to employ them were insurgents. If you hadn't noticed Iraq was not stable from 2003 onwards.

The world was going to shit from 2003 and the invasion of Iraq. To blame Obama shows you're just being partisan.

Laws are law. In the US there are laws preventing people from land locked states from whale hunting. Many laws aren't enforced. A law is only as good as the enforcement that is put in place.

South Africa has guns, people need them, because laws are not enforced across the board. Go across the border to Mozambique or Zimbabwe, you don't need a gun, crime is not a problem. Why? Well in Mozambique the army/police are on the streets with guns and if you mess around you're going to get shot by the authorities. In Zimbabwe it's merely that Mugabe's in charge and you'll not get very far.

You seem to like twisting everything you come across to fit your view of the world.

You're talking about different countries as if you've actually been there and experienced what it's like and understood why things happen. But I get the distinct feeling you don't have a clue. And I'm not meaning this in a manner to insult, I'm tired and rubbish at writing, however this is my take on things.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sorry, that first world distinction does not work....you guys say if you put strict gun laws in place gun violence will go down......they have extreme gun control in most 3rd world countries and gun murder rates that are way beyond the U.S.....so gun laws aren't the issue....passive populations lead to lower crime rates in Europe, and Japan......

European criminals get guns easily, they just don't use them.

"you guys", what do you mean "you guys"?

You need to understand the difference between different countries before you come on here telling me stuff you seem not to understand.

You think European criminals easily get guns then just don't use them? Are you being serious?