Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
you sure about that? It probably varies by state.
It's federal law but it only applies to federally licensed firearm dealers.
you sure about that? It probably varies by state.
A gun is a very efficient way of killing people. You can kill 4 or 5 people in 10 seconds with a gun but if you only have a knife or some other weapon, you can't.
Of course, you can kill people with anything. And if someone wants to kill they still will. But banning guns means banning an efficient and easy way of killing. It's about damage control.
You can kill 100s of people in 1 second with a good bomb.
I'm pretty sure handguns is 21 across the nation right now.
Yet there are numerous European countries where handguns are largely prohibited which have even higher violent crime rates.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your premise seems to be that if Western Europeans owned handguns that the violent crime rate would also skyrocket to match the US. I think that is simply false. There are a number of other similarly developed countries which do allow much less restricted access to handguns where this has not occurred.
If I had a firearm in my possession, and I saw someone kill a person who was not threatening him in any manner and was getting ready to kill another person in cold blood, I may very well intercede. OTOH if I saw someone breaking into my neighbor's house and I knew nobody was there, I would simply call the police and let them handle it. And if I saw someone speeding, I would do nothing.
And I find the premise of "potential troublemakers" being arrested by "law enforcers" when they are not directly suspected of committing a crime to be authoritarian to an extreme. The open possession of a weapon in the vicinity of a suspected crime may very well make an authority figure a bit more interested in that individual than he would be in others. It should certainly make him more wary for his own personal safety and that of others in the vicinity. But that basis alone should not cause the "potential troublemaker" to be arrested.
Law abiding? 100%!
A gun is a very efficient way of killing people. You can kill 4 or 5 people in 10 seconds with a gun but if you only have a knife or some other weapon, you can't.
Of course, you can kill people with anything. And if someone wants to kill they still will. But banning guns means banning an efficient and easy way of killing. It's about damage control.
What part of 'shall not be infringed' do these lawmakers not understand?
A gun is a very efficient way of killing people. You can kill 4 or 5 people in 10 seconds with a gun but if you only have a knife or some other weapon, you can't.
Of course, you can kill people with anything. And if someone wants to kill they still will. But banning guns means banning an efficient and easy way of killing. It's about damage control.
It also means banning an efficient and (relatively) easy way of defending oneself - a way that physically weaker people require access to moreso than most.
All in all though, it's for the best. That's why you are far more likely to be shot dead than me.
Yeah, and banning guns in the US will change that? No. Banning guns will reduce the number of people able to defend themselves while not likely doing much about the number of people shot to death.
Eventually it would. It would take time, but it would eventually.
And in the meantime...
Yeah, no thanks.
I don't think people are robbing 7-11s and liquor stores to pay their doctor bills. Maybe if we had socialized heroin...To put it very simply, a lot of the arguments against guns are don't take into aco**** socio-economic factors. Yes, America has lots of guns. Yes, we also have a high crime rate. But what don't have that all of the European countries do is a strong network of social safety nets that keeps people from descending to crime in the first place. Institute things like universal healthcare and you'll see that gun crime drop pretty quick.
Got a source which shows that violent crime and access to firearms are related in Europe? Or any place for that matter?Apart from being rather vague, statistical evidence so far doesn't seem to validate such a statement.
I don't know when you last visited the US or where you went, but the Wild West days are long gone. I never see people carrying firearms around here, and even Easy Rider rifle racks in pickup trucks became passe long ago. Some people use rifles and shotguns for hunting, but you won't see those unless you go to a range or an area where people are actually hunting. Some of the women might have handguns in their purses to protect themseves in cases of sexual assaults. But I'd certainly never know about it.Also, it has been mentioned, rightfully I think, that gun abuse is a cultural issue as well.
That is just it. I question your vision of reality as it exists in the US. Most neighborhoods are just as safe as they are in Europe. The violent crime is typically limited to the "poor neighborhoods". And based on stories I have read in the paper, I would much more likely be a victim of "hooliganism" in Europe than I would in the US.It's all very well to say what you might/will do, but laws cannot be based on such vagaries. There's a difference between what people will admit to and what actually occurs in reality.
In the meantime what? in the meantime you have a police force whose job it is to protect you. Demand more of them, get them to do your job, and in a few years, this just won't be a problem.
Is life in the US that terrifying that you cannot imagine going without a gun for a few years? Who is out to get you?
Good lord, this is like asking two people (one deaf from birth, the other born without eyes) whether a fireworks show is better than a rock concert.
The police force - absent teleporter technology - cannot come to my aid as quickly as I can pull a gun from my holster or the nightstand, even if I have 911 on speed-dial. And further, "and in a few years this just won't be a problem" is uninformed or naive. Aside from anything else - guns aren't just a defense against other guns.
What is it about Irish society that makes guns unneccesary to the degree that they are essential in the US to stop you from being murdered? Care to speculate?
Hell if I know, I've never been to Ireland.
But you keep using loaded words to describe things that I don't agree with. Is free speech really essential to a democracy? If so, why is it not essential to (say) Singapore? Care to speculate? What, you're terrified of not being able to protest the government? Can you really go without protesting the government for a few years while it re-forms into something more democratic?
Seriously, you're coming across as pretty demeaning to me with how you're putting things. I rate having a gun in the same vein as wearing a seatbelt, or having auto insurance. I'm not 'terrified' of auto accidents, and drive well enough to have never had an accident (and don't plan on having one), but that doesn't mean that I don't belt up every time I get in the car. I'm not going to go without a seatbelt for the next year because it might help force carmakers to improve their airbags to the point that the seatbelt is considered unnecessary.