Too many guns in the US?
Sort:
Hey I found that there are a few wanna be hoods on the site, my pesonalfeelings about this are that if anymore join I am more than willing to play them because I am probably keeping a few guns and thugs off the street
That is true then we will have our cover blown, after that we may find some gov agent on the doorstep to take one of us away
RetGuvvie98 wrote:
Julius,
I can't resist, "anything that requires two hands to hold ... seems a little overboard" - - could that list of 'anything that requires two hands to hold' include your favorite girl? remember, most of them seem to have a strap........
Your reuters article doesn't clarify - many who own guns own more than one - NOT making the USA the most heavily armed as the weapons are not distributed throughout the population - one per person.... I think that is a point worth noting. Many gun owners possess more than 5 guns - leaving the USA at a much lower level of population likelihood to have a weapon at hand than the article seems to indicate. Also, many of those who own, do not keep them loaded and handy. and many are loaded and carried only during hunting seasons...... or for target practice.
Seriously, Washington DC has about the most draconian gun law in the world - and has an extremely high killing rate - per 100,000 residents. right up there with Philadelphia, Detroit, and Flint MI. It would seem that using guns to kill people isn't regulated by gun-removal-laws enacted by seemingly well-meaning liberals, rather, control of emotional instability and immaturity is something that must be cultured by good and consistent parenting - research shows clearly that a loving home relationship involving both a father and a mother is needed to impart responsible behavior in children as they grow up. lacking one or another - either the mother or the father - appears to leave a vacant spot in a child's psyche - ..... or having poor schools, lack of a feeling of achievement, whether academic or otherwise - leaves kids feeling like 'acting out' and they will - when there is no religious training of any sort to instill a belief in a higher authority that we must all answer to someday.
Interestingly, conservatives believe that emotional and personal control is learned behavior, liberals seem to think that emotional and personal control is something that the government can regulate (gun control laws).... when governments throughout the world have repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot even regulate themselves properly.....
History has long proven: take away law-abiding citizenry's guns, and you have provided a situation where either thugs and gangs will take over, or the GOVERNMENT will take over - neither of which is part of the foundation of this country - and hopefully, never will.
anyway, have you seen the video on the T-Rex Rifle? - 577 caliber? it is hilarious.
http://www.collegeslackers.com/video/846
Regards to all. opinions are everywhere. Keep your sense of humor. it makes life bearable. as for me, I'm packing and prepared. (and moving to texas in a couple years).
Ha ha ha yeah sometimes the word "overboard" and my girlfriend go together lol.Thankfully she's not a chess.com member who will read that. 
I'll stick to my point that I'm not for banning guns. I've posted here that it would not solve the problem. Check out my first post (I am very proud to have the 4th comment on here). The reuters article was posted because it was published recently and provided some stats for people.
I've also posted that there are many factors (like the ones you've listed) that contribute to crime.
Lastly-the video is pretty great.
RetGuvvie98 wrote:
FTW,
the policy for this site involves: we can discuss at will, but have to stay away from politics, religion and some other topics. I think advocating removing tyrants comes close to the limits. Erik will close the thread unless we stay out of politics.
So your saying that the American Constitution has nothing to do with politics? The same document that states we have the right to bear arms?
RedSoxpawn wrote: That is true then we will have our cover blown, after that we may find some gov agent on the doorstep to take one of us away
lol
"When they kick at your front door - how you gonna go? With your head on your hands or on the trigger of your gun?"
-The Clash (greatest punk band ever)
I'm gonna go out with a bang to somebody's head
Anyway you look at it, even without guns killers will kill people, The same way as teachers teach, preachers preach, and leaders lead.
Do you really think a known killer could not find another way of killing other than gun? Get real!
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2834893820070828
This article, and those who adheres to it, is quiely suggesting that Nigeria is awashed with violence and because its gun ownership is one of the lowest therefore destroys the notion of eliminating guns from their owners. It also qualifies Latin America in the same way.
But this is surely a wrong road to go down on.
These countries have very unstable governments - it is because of this that there is violence ( violence is not necessarily bestowed onto nearby communities by their own members who until such that killing point have been living a blissful life - aka US ). The violence in those countries springs from guerrilla groups seeking to topple successive governments in power. Violence springs from those who do not see any use to - or want to make use of - democracy. Yes, it is lack of democracy that is the fuming point. One notes that they do indeed use guns as their primary weapons upon trying to fulfill their wish.
The US has 90 guns per each person on average more than any other 'democratic' country and it is the US that leads the way in murder among the 'democratic' countries.
Let me put the question here - would this guy in Omaha have killed those 8( or is it nine ) people had he not had the gun? The answer is definitely no. There is no argument on that, I hope. Violence will always exist, that is a truism. I give you that. But taking away freely-owned guns eliminates another possibility of a murder happening on top of all those murder liable to happen.
And by the way, if it is an argument to say that in the US one owner may own many guns so reducing the gun-ownership statistics - then you must apply this to other countries too.
The kid (19) in Omaha was at a mall, where he KNEW people would be unarmed! Schools also are full of unarmed people.....if everyone were armed at that mall how many would he have killed before he was dropped by a law abiding citizen who was packing? 
Reb wrote: The kid (19) in Omaha was at a mall, where he KNEW people would be unarmed! Schools also are full of unarmed people.....if everyone were armed at that mall how many would he have killed before he was dropped by a law abiding citizen who was packing?
You seem to be describing the wild west - when the US was made - killing the indians and then the cowboys each other in shoot-outs, with poor citizens running for cover. Next you'll be erecting hangman's nooses all around...
Why do you think these crazy shooters NEVER go into a police station to shoot people? Use your common sense, if you have any. Gun control laws ONLY disarm law abiding people and leave them at the mercy of such killers which is why many millions of people will always oppose them. What kind of person wants to leave law abiding citizens defenseless?
gun control doesn't really solve anything. the people that buy guns and have them registered are not the ones we need to worry about, it the people that purchase guns illegally and/or don't have registered firearms.
The people that want to kill will find a way, they aren't going to not use a gun because there is a gun law in place.
As tragic as these shootings are, guns are not the problem at hand, and its the subject that is always brought up, people kill people, not guns. Should we ban the use of knives so that there are no more stabbing deaths? Of course not. The root of the problem is with people, society should focus more on being a society and stop blaming the wrong things because no one wants to address the issue.
Maybe what that kid need was some love and some friends.
Dec 6, 2007
0
#33
For the people who believe guns kill, consider the WTC. They wanted to kill, we told them they could not take guns on the planes. They killed, but at our request without using guns.
Reb - your view is a bit skewed. I don't actually understand what you are saying, apart from being chronically vociferous about holding guns. Here in France, citizens are amassing guns little by little. You know what, last week for the first time youths from the ' Paris suburbs' actually fired at police for the first time. They actually burned down a police station. They actually injured several police with firearms for the first time. What in your view is likely to happen from hereon. I say, police will become actual targets. You see the thread? But hey, we can't go back. Guns exist just as Bombs exist. Tell me, do you advocate that Iran has a right to Nuclear bombs? Or are you with Bush, for the wrong reasons maybe, who is trying to deny them just that? If citizens are free to hold arms, then Iran is free to have nuclear bombs. So too anyone willing to have nuclear arsenal 'as a means of deterrent' as some will argue.
Peace be with you.
guns dont kill people.... people kill people. I refused to give up my guns that i obtained legally to be defenseless against those who obtained theirs illegally
ciraxis wrote:
gun control doesn't really solve anything. the people that buy guns and have them registered are not the ones we need to worry about, it the people that purchase guns illegally and/or don't have registered firearms.
The people that want to kill will find a way, they aren't going to not use a gun because there is a gun law in place.
As tragic as these shootings are, guns are not the problem at hand, and its the subject that is always brought up, people kill people, not guns. Should we ban the use of knives so that there are no more stabbing deaths? Of course not. The root of the problem is with people, society should focus more on being a society and stop blaming the wrong things because no one wants to address the issue.
Maybe what that kid need was some love and some friends.
Say ciraxis, if you were able to invent a utensil that can reduce food to tiny fragments without the use of knives would you not say that it is a good thing? If you can find a substitution for cars that emit polluting fumes into the atmosphere, would you not take it? We do what we can with what we have at our disposal. Not to try and 'save our planet', try and stop more killings, is a selfish and recalcitrant position to take. True people kill, I do agree - check out my previous article here - they will use anything they have, feet and sticks, knives and batons, guns and bombs.... But like I say to fold our hands and say well let them have their polluting cars, let them have their knives, let them have their bombs, let them tote their guns ... well this is disaster.
Guns allow people like me (ie not built like a rock) to have a fighting chance against anyone else. Guns are for protection, and for allowing the consumption of tasty animals.
The cities in the US with the worst murder rates are also the cities with the strictest gun control laws. You think this is just a coincidence? As for nukes, I wish they didnt exist at all. Since they do however I can see why every country would want them since many countries do have them. What country has a right to say which country can or cannot have them? I dont care what Iran has, if they dared to use a nuke against the US the response would be total obliteration. Humans have a right to life or they dont. If they do (I think they do) they also have a right to protect their life and the lives of their loved ones in the best way possible, in olden times that was a sword, or a black powder rifle, today its modern guns. Who is going to protect all the law abiding disarmed people? The cops?! LOL
Reb wrote: The cities in the US with the worst murder rates are also the cities with the strictest gun control laws. You think this is just a coincidence? As for nukes, I wish they didnt exist at all. Since they do however I can see why every country would want them since many countries do have them. What country has a right to say which country can or cannot have them? I dont care what Iran has, if they dared to use a nuke against the US the response would be total obliteration. Humans have a right to life or they dont. If they do (I think they do) they also have a right to protect their life and the lives of their loved ones in the best way possible, in olden times that was a sword, or a black powder rifle, today its modern guns. Who is going to protect all the law abiding disarmed people? The cops?! LOL
So these are your words Reb - 'I don't care what Iran has... if they use it against the US the response will be total obliteration '. In my view this is just bravado on your part. You throw away these things without much thought. Without much care as you put it. When a bomb lands on a country - that country is already destroyed. How on earth can you retaliate. Even if you do - many of your own people would have already been obliterated( sic ). Is this a price worth paying? Don't you care about that? We all know that people can be fanatics - some people DO NOT CARE truly what counter-effect their actions will. I do mean do not care ( not your 'don't care' said partly thoughtlessly ) - when these people hold guns or bombs they do a lot - a very lot - of damage. Remember 9/11. I don't think you weigh your words carefully when you say you do not care if Iran has nuclear bombs.
To try and argue about olden timles is a defunct strategy too. I should remind you that history is deadly. The society from our neanderthal ancestors are not to be proud of. Kings and emperors and tyrants just kill for love of the land. First with knives then later on with guns. No Reb. DEMOCRACY is the key. That people are civilised and regulated by their peers.
Dec 6, 2007
0
#40
Reb wrote:
"Gun Control" is the Key to Genocide documents how gun control (and confiscation) has preceded the slaughter and genocide of millions of people in Turkey, the Soviet Union, Germany, China, Cambodia and others.
the difference is between a government disarming them to kill them and a government disarming them to prevent them from being killed. Are you suggesting that everyone in America would be killed by a government if they didn't have a gun?