gun control - what are we waiting for ?

[xrayy]

.

[xrayy]

only trained professionals like police or armed forces should handle weapons. it is a mess and a danger that others are still allowed to "play" with them.

because the u.s. ignore this simple principle they live in their mess with the by far highest weapon related death rate in the civilized part of the world.

if you can not trust your authorities i ask you: do you live in a civilized country?

 

we have a funny guy here repeating his non-arguments and discrediting my attempt to debate with a minimum of common sense.

his idea: control the people but not the guns while he is unable to control at least his own thoughts.

i'm sure he has the answer... autocracy ? thought control ? probably with a leader like trump, lukaschenko or putin ?

fantastic idea. lets go and raise death rate wherever we can...

[DanteRedfield]

I trust the police to save the day and I appreciate their sacrifice to protect the innocent putting their own lives on the line for strangers, but they're not supermans and can't be everywhere at a second's notice

[xrayy]

ok, but do they have to be everywhere ? at least in my country not. and would it be better if they permanently overreact out of fear like in the u.s. and shoot people just because someone searches for a chewing gum or a letter instead of a weapon ? i know both worlds - the paranoid cops (and they have the known reason for that) in the u.s. and the at least little more relaxed european cops. i prefer the european ones and their methods. the chance to be killed as an innocent citizen even just because of a misunderstanding or a wrong move is much lower.

[HeyYou]

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away......

 

Where I live, (here in the US) it's pretty rural. If I found myself in a situation where a quick response from the police would be required, they would show up in time to clean up the mess. They couldn't possibly get here in time to do me any good. Therefore, it is MY responsibility to protect myself, and my family.

 

Not so very long ago, the police were called to a house for a reported 'break in'. The cops didn't show up for 45 minutes. In that time, the guys that broke into the house beat the crap out of the father, raped the wife, and 14 year old daughter, trashed their house, and stole their truck. There were no firearms in the house, as daddy 'didn't believe' in owning guns. He now has a concealed carry permit, and doesn't go anywhere unarmed. Closing the barn door after the horse has already left......

 

The US is a HUGE country, with very large expanses of sparsely populated land. It is physically impossible for the police to be anything other than janitors, when it comes to crime in rather larger areas of this country. Expecting them to 'keep you safe' is a pipe dream.

[xrayy]

the need of a deputies in some lesser populated areas absolutely makes sense not only in the u.s.. no doubt about that. but the u.s. have a big problem with already too many weapons and a dangerously mighty lobby permanently promoting and supporting even more deadly weapons. who can stop this insanity or crazy madness or whatever you call it ? what is the final goal ? that everybody lives in a fortress with hundreds of guns and mountains of ammunition ? and in the end only the ones with the deadliest and most effective weapons and the best training have the right to survive ?

[HeyYou]

the need of a deputies in some lesser populated areas absolutely makes sense not only in the u.s.. no doubt about that. but the u.s. have a big problem with already too many weapons and a dangerously mighty lobby permanently promoting and supporting even more deadly weapons. who can stop this insanity or crazy madness or whatever you call it ? what is the final goal ? that everybody lives in a fortress with hundreds of guns and mountains of ammunition ? and in the end only the ones with the deadliest and most effective weapons and the best training have the right to survive ?

Yeah, more cops...... in a time when the left is calling for FEWER cops. Can you see how that might be a problem?

 

But now, we are getting into gun crime in general, not mass-shootings in particular. If you look at the statistics (freely available on the FBI website), if you excluded five major cities from those statistics, (Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, Baltimore, and another I can't remember just off-hand, all democrat controlled I might add, with some pretty severe gun laws.....Edit: St. Louis is the fifth.) The US instantly becomes as safe, if not safer.... than most other first world nations. Keep in mind, that most shootings are happening in what are already 'high crime' areas, so it really shouldn't come as a surprise.

 

Would adding more guns to those areas decrease the number of shootings? Not very likely. Give the criminals better weapons, and they will tend to want to use them......

 

Several of those cities (including washington DC) have already tried a flat out ban on certain types of firearms. (pistols being right up there on the list, as they are the most common weapon used in gun crimes) and it really didn't make much difference at all. The criminals were still able to get their guns. That shouldn't have been a surprise either..... Folks that are already doing something illegal, really aren't going to care that there is yet another law that they are breaking. Leave it to politicians to believe otherwise......

[Gracinfields]

 

the need of a deputies in some lesser populated areas absolutely makes sense not only in the u.s.. no doubt about that. but the u.s. have a big problem with already too many weapons and a dangerously mighty lobby permanently promoting and supporting even more deadly weapons. who can stop this insanity or crazy madness or whatever you call it ? what is the final goal ? that everybody lives in a fortress with hundreds of guns and mountains of ammunition ? and in the end only the ones with the deadliest and most effective weapons and the best training have the right to survive ?

Yeah, more cops...... in a time when the left is calling for FEWER cops. Can you see how that might be a problem?

 

But now, we are getting into gun crime in general, not mass-shootings in particular. If you look at the statistics (freely available on the FBI website), if you excluded five major cities from those statistics, (Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, Baltimore, and another I can't remember just off-hand, all democrat controlled I might add, with some pretty severe gun laws.....Edit: St. Louis is the fifth.) The US instantly becomes as safe, if not safer.... than most other first world nations. Keep in mind, that most shootings are happening in what are already 'high crime' areas, so it really shouldn't come as a surprise.

 

Would adding more guns to those areas decrease the number of shootings? Not very likely. Give the criminals better weapons, and they will tend to want to use them......

 

Several of those cities (including washington DC) have already tried a flat out ban on certain types of firearms. (pistols being right up there on the list, as they are the most common weapon used in gun crimes) and it really didn't make much difference at all. The criminals were still able to get their guns. That shouldn't have been a surprise either..... Folks that are already doing something illegal, really aren't going to care that there is yet another law that they are breaking. Leave it to politicians to believe otherwise......

 

 

Something in support of what you said HeyYou

[Deleted92948618User]

I am going to toss out all the hyperbole and propaganda about "the media" and "that other side of the aisle". Both sides will mangle the truth to make their points, and both sides are completely missing the point. I see only one argument, the same one nobody wants to talk about. The truth of the Second Amendment.

Americans slap their chest and brag about being the freest nation on the planet (a claim some Canadians would contest). These Americans claim their Second Amendment is there to protect their freedom. Bull stuff. From my reading of the writings of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Payne, Benjamin Franklin, and others, the Second Amendment was written to protect Militias like the American Minutemen. The Second Amendment was supposed to protect the ability of citizen soldiers to assemble quickly and defend the borders of a fledgling nation from retaliation from England and France. The Second Amendment was supposed to preserve what later became Americas National Guard, citizen soldiers who were subject to governmental oversight, just as the Revolutionary War's Minutemen were. Let me repeat the salient part, "citizen soldiers who were subject to governmental oversight". And that is the truth NOBODY wants to talk about, the phrase "A well regulated militia" actually means "governmental oversight".

The true intent of the Second Amendment has been perverted to allow anyone to own a gun.

[Perraine]

Well, said once again Salty. Americans though love that word "freedom".

 

People sometimes forget that America, as a nation, isn't really all that old in the context of 'civilisations", with a vastly disparate ethnic and cultural make up (even in it's infancy) I believe that's why it's sometimes referred to as "the great experiment", taking what, at the time, were considered some of the best social and political ideals and creating a new country governed by them.

 

It's worked pretty darn well, all things considered, but it's far from perfect - no country can even come close to making that claim - My question is one that is often inferred, but rarely spoken = Where does one draw the line between "freedom" and "Security"?