First, let me say that I am rushed while typing this... I hope it does not come out too aggressive. Or that it is taken wrong.
Might I suggest you stop with emphasizing every second word with upper caps and bold font as that is particularly aggressive and it comes off as if you are talking down to people. In forum terms, it is a tad rude to keep doing it.
I can appreciate logic and feedback... but I see things differently than others based upon experience and history.
And that is all well and good, but that does not mean that others are wrong.
Normally, I would agree with you. However, he posted a comment that was designed to denigrate anyone who owned a weapon and did not take time to consider ANYTHING about those people at all, other than his own personal opinions.
There is a time and place for everything. He CHOSE to call ME names, not the other way around. If his past is marked with pain, then I feel sorry for him, but that is what Psychologists are for. There is no need to take it out on ME considering he also knows SQUAT about me.
My whole point was that he CHOSE to fire off a flame riddled comment that was designed to get a rise out of someone and start a war. This is essentially the definition of TROLLING, correct? He would NOT have made those remarks to me in public face-to-face, so it is also a mark of anonymous freedom.
He has his belief, like everyone has their own. To each their own, I say. There is no need to vilify or denigrate a person because they have a differing opinion. If I had chosen to say something obviously WRONG or factually incorrect, I would accept that I made a mistake. He has stated something FACTUALLY INCORRECT, and should also.
He does not believe he is wrong.
You are very in your face as well in how you post. Perhaps you should consider how you are also coming across..
That is your personal belief, and everyone has a set of them. It is good to have diversity in conversation. You, however, are not calling me names.
And I happen to disagree with you. As a matter of discourse, I would state that guns are the great equalizer and allow an 80 year old woman an EQUAL chance to defend herself against a younger criminal.
You cite a myth.. The statistics clearly indicate that the 80 year old woman is more likely to be shot by her own gun in her own home.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/having-a-gun-in-the-house-doesnt-make-a-woman-safer/284022/
injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/1/48.full
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
Some people disagree with that, thinking that there is no need for firearms for personal protection, but most have also never been in the situation where it is life or death, and the criminal wants them DEAD as well as their stuff. Given the same situation, most people would likely change their minds.
So you would want to provide someone who is facing such a situation for the first time, who may not be trained or able to even identify what is going on in the moment of panic, a gun? This is how people get shot through doors and windows, and they are usually people who live in the house, visitors knocking on the door, or people just coming home late at night.
And the ones that say they will not are deluding themselves. UNTIL THEY HAVE BEEN IN THAT SITUATION, there is NO WAY for them to accurately say what they would do or feel. And I learned this lesson the hard way in the military. You can guess what you will do, and talk a mean and well spoken argument... but it is different than being put into a situation and actually experiencing it.
Having been in that situation, quite recently actually, the absolute last thing I would have wanted in the house was a gun. Had there been one, I would be dead. And I say this with 100% certainty.
I think people put too much faith in firearms. The result is that people who own them are more likely to die from the firearms they own or they are more likely to shoot a loved one with it.
The core problem is VIOLENCE... not GUNS.
And when you put a gun in a violent situation, what happens then?
Guns play a very big role in "violence":
People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements. Update: A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data in all 50 states found that for every one percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.
Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.
It is an exceptionally strong and dangerous correlation.
I beg to differ. You should check your facts before commenting.
there HAVE been mass shootings since then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Hectorville_siege
Two shootings in nearly 20 years.
I would say the gun laws and gun restrictions here have been very successful.
So why are people against such restrictions?
and some mass killers have CHOSEN to use fire, instead... and being a retired Truck Captain Paramedic Firefighter, I can say this is honestly FAR WORSE than shooting someone. What is the difference between the mass killer using fire and one using a gun? NOTHING
So allowing guns to remain in the equation just means that these people have an easier way to kill others. Do you think this is acceptable?
and that is MY POINT! if there is a will, there is a way, and the mass killer mentality is just one of MANY violent personalities that must be dealt with... NOT THE TOOL which is the gun. Everyone likes to blame the GUN for the crime and they seem to forget that there was a PERSON that USED the gun... the GUN IS AN INANIMATE piece of metal and can also be used as a hammer, to crush coffee beans, beat things into place and pry open boxes (all which were done pre-1980 from the time guns were invented till more recently, so I am NOT reaching here... see the Mountain Men of the US/Canada).
The GUN is a tool... the WEAPON is the Human that chooses to wield it in a deadly manner because of cowardice, stupidity and mental deviations.
I would think removing the one that causes the most damage, that has resulted in the most deaths from mass shootings and killings would help reduce those numbers dramatically.
If you notice one particular tool was killing more people than all of the others, wouldn't you want to restrict access to that tool? Or would you continue to sell it over the counter to all and sundry? Let's look at cars as a prime example. Before you get a driver's license, you need to go through a series of tests and checks, you need to learn how to drive and know all the road rules. In other words, the use of a motor vehicle is highly restricted in that those operating them need to have obtained a license after having undergone lessons, checks and tests. In areas where the use of a car would pose high danger to others (such as malls), they are banned from entering entirely.
So it stands to reason that when guns cause so many deaths and injury and when there are so many mass shootings and gun violence in general throughout the population, that removing or restricting access to this "tool" would prove beneficial to the whole.
THE POINT OF THE DEBATE SHOULD FOCUS UPON THE CORE PROBLEMS, NOT THE TOOL USED IN THE PROBLEMS. If mass murders suddenly shift to fire, automobiles, hammers, screwdrivers or Extension cords, are we going to ban THOSE as well?
Well access to many are restricted.
For example, if you're a shifty looking person who goes to a petrol station and start buying gallons worth and a box of matches, you'd raise a few eyebrows. Cars and their use are highly restricted and controlled. Screw-drivers, if there were mass killings with those, I'd imagine they would be as well.
That's the thing that you are failing to acknowledge in your attempt to berate others with your bold upper caps. If something is seen to pose a threat and danger to others in society, then their use will usually be restricted and regulated.
The core problem is VIOLENCE. The core problem has not gone away in Australia or Britain either... it only shifted to using other tools, therefore my assertion of the core problem as being VIOLENCE is reinforced by the crime rate.
Once again, we removed the ability for some in society to harm others with particular weapons. So we reduced the violence from that sector immediately. And any way you look at it, that is a good thing.
that is not the issue. And you make grand assumptions without evidence. Which is nice if you are being facetious or farcical, but not when you are debating.
Considering that you have been making claims and touting clear myths without any evidence to support your argument, you are really not one to talk.
SOME people who protest gun laws are simply protecting others by not allowing the elite in power ever greater controls due to the nefarious nature of their proven history, historical comments and beliefs. hillary would not hesitate to insert some kind of gun confiscation program if she thought she could. Others have said as much as well (obummer, bloomberg). One particularly outspoken anti-gun female congressperson (who's name i cannot remember, but I can look up later) is also a concealed carry owner/gun user, and has armed security. This is unacceptable as well as hypocritical.
Paranoid woo does not belong in this forum.
There is also the basic problem of people not wanting to pay for law enforcement. People always want to complain that there are no cops when you need them... but no one wants to back up their words with actions and help PAY to keep more cops on the street.
Personally, I would rather have trained law enforcement than some untrained yahoo who's ranting about his rights to own guns.
the CORE ISSUE, again, is NOT THE GUN, but the VIOLENCE.
Yes, you've made that point a few times now. You don't need to keep making it and making it bold and loud..
and I will preach this till the day I die.
Probably not a great or wise thing to do on this site.
IT IS THE VIOLENCE that is the issue! As well as the CRIMINAL MENTALITY. You can take away guns all you want... that is NOT going to make a difference as long as there are criminals willing to get them by any means possible. EVEN IN AUSTRALIA where you've done your gun confiscations, there are still criminals with guns, so please don't argue that point. When the CORE PROBLEMS are addressed, there will be more people willing to give up their firearms... until then, it is an invalid argument to to say guns are the problem.
Well yes, criminals have guns. That is why they are criminals.
But we don't believe in guns for self protection or the need for such things. As the statistics clearly show, having a gun on one's person or in one's home for protection is more likely to result in one's own demise from said gun. It shouldn't take a genius to figure out that the core problem there are the weapons themselves. Should it?
Studies also found that people who own guns tend to be more aggressive, which I am finding personally right now...
It is like saying that Lighters are the reason for fires because they are easy to use, can be lit multiple times without reloading and are distributed to just about anyone who can reach them EVERYONE can see that this is NOT the case... there are matches and other means of creating fires... the problem is the PERSON lighting fires, NOT THE TOOL USED TO LIGHT THE FIRES...
and that example directly correlates to the GUN/VIOLENCE/HOMICIDE problem. It is NOT THE TOOL but the PERSON.
And yet the "tool" factors so strongly with violence.
The correlation between having one and violence is quite strong. In other words, having a gun on a person has been found to more often than not, make them
more aggressive and threatening towards others.
First of all, it is seen as a right because it IS a right in the US. And even in America, you cannot just go out and buy "whatever you want".
Really?
Are you saying that one cannot go to a gun show and purchase automatic military weapons in the US if that is what one wants?
We HAVE LAWS that are EXCELLENT... the problem is that a LOT of those laws are NOT ENFORCED.
Hmmm..
Which is another shortcoming to gun laws here... and to the gov't here. HOW many people were prosecuted for submitting false applications when denied for a gun? There are PLENTY of felons that were prevented from getting a gun in this manner... how many of those were prosecuted for TRYING, which is a FELONY in itself given that they are already FELONS and cannot own a firearm in the US?
Or private sales of guns should be banned completely and force people to have to register and go through criminal and mental health checks before being allowed to purchase a gun?
Secondly... throwing out the comment "do you really see yourself arming yourself and going against the State" is not addressing anything and irrelevant (and emotionally charged). There are MANY who would stand against the state if it was violating peoples rights. That is how the US was formed, or did you forget?
Aren't you the one who just went on a rant about the elite in power and their "nefarious" nature, etc?
So obviously you see it as being very relevant.
Which begs the question, do you see acts of terrorism against the State, by those who oppose the State and their "nefarious nature" to be bad people? Or good people?
My grandchildren have an armed cop at school at all times. If there are school sponsored functions or there is school in session, there is an armed cop there. PERIOD. The cop is also a teacher and gives classes. If ANYONE comes to that school armed intent on doing damage, they know that they will be met with ARMED RESISTANCE and dealt with accordingly. And I believe that all schools should abide by this program as well... it would solve a lot of problems.
Or you can simply remove guns from the equation and you would see the number of such shootings drop dramatically.
Also, armed police officers in schools have yet to be able to stop a mass shooting before it happens. Columbine had an armed officer on site. He was unable to do anything. Same with Virginia Tech.
What it has shown, however, is a rise in children being arrested and put through the criminal justice system for issues that would normally be handled by the school's teachers and principal. Which is a great concern because by criminalising children and their behaviour in school, then what it does is place those minors in contact with criminal elements they would not normally have been in contact with.
Yet the most striking impact of school police officers so far, critics say, has been a surge in arrests or misdemeanor charges for essentially nonviolent behavior — including scuffles, truancy and cursing at teachers — that sends children into the criminal courts.
“There is no evidence that placing officers in the schools improves safety,” said Denise C. Gottfredson, a criminologist at the University of Maryland who is an expert in school violence. “And it increases the number of minor behavior problems that are referred to the police, pushing kids into the criminal system.”
Nationwide, hundreds of thousands of students are arrested or given criminal citations at schools each year. A large share are sent to court for relatively minor offenses, with black and Hispanic students and those with disabilities disproportionately affected, according to recent reports from civil rights groups, including the Advancement Project, in Washington, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, in New York.
Such criminal charges may be most prevalent in Texas, where police officers based in schools write more than 100,000 misdemeanor tickets each year, said Deborah Fowler, the deputy director of Texas Appleseed, a legal advocacy center in Austin. The students seldom get legal aid, she noted, and they may face hundreds of dollars in fines, community service and, in some cases, a lasting record that could affect applications for jobs or the military.
It takes time to weed out those who are irresponsible. We should not flush the baby down with the bath water just because it will get dirty again, or because it was dirty once...
Or you can just have more effective gun control measures in place..
Nice emotionally charged picture you paint... I don't react with horror... but I have also BEEN there and watched these kids fight in a war they are brainwashed to believe in from a religion that is controlling and full of HATE and VIOLENCE (the key words). And I don't think ALL muslims are full of hate and violence... like I also don't think all christians are... only the FANATICAL ones without reason and looking for justifications for their actions... which are centered around HATE and VIOLENCE.
I never said anything about religious ideology.
What I am saying is that the belief that it is fine for children to own and use firearms is one and the same.
If guns are being used properly and under proper supervision, then there is no problem with it. You are failing to address the REAL problem and concentrating on the TOOL... a common mistake and one far too overused in the anti-gun group.
The same with cars. Would you let your 5 year old drive a car if you are sitting next to them while out on the freeway? How about a chainsaw? Sharp knives? Fireworks? After all, if they are being used properly and under supervision, shouldn't be an issue, right?
Does proper supervision include having an instructor stand next to them? That 9 year old girl learned first hand how well that went.
No, that is NOT THE ISSUE. and your emotional cries at the end are great for drama and display, but irrelevant. You don't know how most people feel about this issue, so...
It is clear enough that you are being overly emotional about this subject. From the upper caps, bold upper caps, describing how you picked up dead bodies, etc..
Perhaps you should calm yourself before responding.
the issue, and the CORE PROBLEM is the VIOLENCE and lack of responsibility. BECAUSE we have people that WILL shoot up a room full of 6 and 7 year old kids... we have a problem... but this is a WORLD PROBLEM and one for the ENTIRE RACE, because EVERY POINT ON THE GLOBE HAS THIS TYPE OF COWARD POS I THEIR MIDST.
And yet, this is a recurring issue in the US.
Why is that?
Again, I caution you to avoid dramatic appeals heavily draped with the dead bodies of the children... you have never had to clean up or investigate something like that, and I have picked up FAR TOO MANY children's bodies and investigated FAR TOO MANY criminal acts perpetuated on children. I can see this issue FAR more clearly than most because I have been on the front lines.
and I will emphatically state again, for the record... THE CORE PROBLEM IS NOT ABOUT THE GUN, BUT ABOUT THE VIOLENCE
AND THE LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY
Do you believe that because you had to pick up the bodies afterwards, that we should just listen to you at face value when you declare guns are not the issue?
As for the front lines, you don't know me or what I used to do. You don't need to appeal to emotions or pull on the heartstrings about the bodies you had to clean up. You have provided no evidence to support your claims in your responses and you have relied solely on emotion and your personal feelings about it all. It's all well and good. However statistics clearly show that you are wrong.
As for all of those children and guns..
According to death certificate data, from 2003 to 2007, more than 680 Americans per year were killed unintentionally with firearms. Data from the National Violent Death Reporting System (which has more comprehensive data on each shooting but currently is operating only in 18 states) show that two thirds of the accidental shooting deaths occurred in someone's home, about half of the victims were younger than 25 years, and half of all deaths were other inflicted—the victim was typically shot accidentally by a friend or family member (eg, brother.)[3] It appears that the large majority of accidental shooting deaths in the home are from guns that were kept in the home.
Children aged 5 to 14 years in the United States have 11 times the likelihood of being killed accidentally with a gun compared with similarly aged children in other developed countries (Table 1).[4] The United States has been in this unenviable position for at least the past decade.[5] From 2003 to 2007, the yearly averages of unintentional firearm fatalities were as follows: 62 children aged 0 to 14, 89 youth aged 15 to 19, and 95 young adults aged 20 to 24 years.[6]
Not surprisingly, there are more accidental gun deaths in areas with more guns.[7–9] The differences are substantial. To illustrate, we compare accidental firearm deaths among the states most extreme in terms of firearm ownership levels. States are grouped so that the populations of the high and low gun states are equal. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data, between 2003 and 2007, the typical resident from the 15 states with the most guns (WY, MT, AK, SD, AR, WV, AL, ID, MS, ND, KY, TN, LA, MO, and VT) was 6 times more likely to die in a gun accident than a typical resident from the 6 states with the fewest guns (HI, NJ, MA, RI, CT, and NY). For example, although there were virtually the same number of children aged 5 to 14 years in both groups of states, 82 had died from accidental gunshot wounds in these high gun states, compared with 8 in the low gun states (Table 2).
Fatal injuries are only the tip of the iceberg. For every fatality from an accidental shooting, there are more than 10 people injured seriously enough in gun accidents to be treated in hospital emergency departments.[10] In other words, almost 20 people a day are shot unintentionally but do not die. This number does not include any of the more than 45 people per day who are treated in emergency rooms for BB/pellet gun wounds (2003–2007) or the many others injured by firearms in other ways (eg, powder burns, struck with a firearm, injured by the recoil of a firearm), many unintentionally.
One study of nonfatal accidental shootings found that the majority were self-inflicted, most involved handguns, and more than one third of the injuries required hospitalization. Injuries often occurred during fairly routine gun handling—cleaning a gun, loading and unloading, target shooting, and so on.[11] It is important to recognize that although some people are at higher risk for unintentional shootings than others, accidents can happen to anyone. No one is completely immune, as shown anecdotally by scores of stories of police, firearms safety instructors, firearms advocates, and other experts who have accidentally shot themselves or others.[12]
Overall, the evidence indicates that a gun in the home is a risk factor for serious accidental injury. When 34 injury prevention experts were asked to prioritize home injury hazards for young children, based on frequency, severity, and preventability of the injury, the experts rated access to firearms in the home as the most significant hazard.[13]
From 2003 to 2007, 33 Americans per day were murdered with guns. This includes almost 1 child (aged 0–14 years), 5 teenagers (aged 15–19 years), and more than 7 young adults (aged 20–24 years) per day. More than two thirds of all homicides in the United States during this period were firearm homicides.
The US rate of firearm homicide for children aged 5 to 14 years is 13 times higher than the firearms homicide rate of other developed nations (Table 1), and our firearms homicide rate for 15- to 24-year-olds is 43 times higher. The overall homicide rate of our youth aged 15 to 24 years is 14 times higher than the overall homicide rate for youth in other countries such as Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, and the United Kingdom.[4] In US states with more guns, many more children, adolescents, young adults, older adults, and women are murdered per capita than in states with fewer guns.[54,55]
The presence of a gun makes quarrels, disputes, assaults, and robberies more deadly. Many murders are committed in a moment of rage. For example, a large percentage of homicides—and especially homicides in the home—occur during altercations over matters such as love, money, and domestic problems, involving acquaintances, neighbors, lovers, and family members; often the assailant or victim has been drinking. Only a small minority of homicides appear to be the carefully planned acts of individuals with a single-minded intention to kill. Most gun killings are indistinguishable from nonfatal gun shootings; it is just a question of the caliber of the gun, whether a vital organ is hit, and how much time passes before medical treatment arrives.[12,56]
Had there been less guns, many of those that you had to clean up and pick up after would still be alive today.
