Sigh. Then how do 80 million people manage to use theirs with out killing anyone?
Bows and arrow were made to kill things. That was their only purpose. Why do they not carry the same baggage? They shoot them in schools.
Knives were originally made to slaughter and kill. One could kill their entire family in their sleep with their kitchen knives if they so desired.
If you magically took away all guns over night, criminals would use the next best tool available.
This argument is tired and old and false. It is based on fear of the possible, not the reality of how little they are used for violence considering how many people there are that own them.
You speak out of fear and frustration. If you feel that banning a gun would have stopped the hate that the Terrorist felt then you are not thinking clearly. Evil always finds a way and punishing others for the actions of an individual is foolish and only grows animosity and division.
Regardless of which side of the gun debate you are on I think we can all agree that Mass-Killings, Gang Murders, Crimes of Hate, etc, ad nauseam, are antithesis to the society we wish to live in. Instead of fighting over what is an immutable point (one that people wont deviate from) we should focus our energy on the cause of the hate that triggers the violence.
For example Gang Violence is typically attributed to poverty, poor education, and tribalism, so focusing on these problems would reduce the acts of violence more effectively.
How many times has a 100% law-abiding person in the U.S. used a “force multiplier” to defend themselves against “multiple adversaries” who were simultaneously threatening their life at that moment?
I didn’t say it would stop the hate he felt. We don’t know what drove him to attack a nightclub, but I’m sure that if he was driven to kill lots of people, he would’ve tried something else… a bomb, perhaps. But instead he got his hands on a gun that made it very easy to kill as many people as possible very quickly and easily.
We don’t have the killer here to ask why he did what he did, so it’s difficult to impossible to root out the cause of his hatred and extinguish it. But wouldn’t it make sense to make it more difficult for people to have access to this sort of weapon, while also combating the failings of our education system?
I’ve said the same previously. When the 2nd Amendment enthusiasts just say no to anything reasonable, you get exhausted and just start saying, “ban all guns” because it seems as likely to happen as reducing any more guns, gun ownership, or gun violence than current levels. It’s like defaulting because you can’t make a payment on your loan and then having the whole amount of the loan due.
Echoing @Mister44’s sentiments, I’m sick of these discussions going in circles. Let’s ask the unexpected. I’ll start.
Those of you who feel you’re being viewed as supportive of the status quo* in this discussion: what (if any) questions do you have for those who have expressed support for further restriction of firearms sale/possession?
*I know that reads a bit convoluted, but I’m making my best effort not to put words in anyone’s mouth.
But police officers are civilians. imo one of the problems with the current law-enforcement agencies is exactly that they define themselves as something different (not necessarily a military self-perception, but not anymore as civil organisation).
But I agree, for me @nungesser meant private individuals.
My point was that your not going to get these weapons off the street because people like me that feel they have the right to possess them will not let you. I respect your feelings on the issues but you have no natural right to deny others their natural right to self defense. Thus our energies are better spent standing together to eliminate the cause of the violence.
As to the night club shooter. I think we know why he did what he did, because he told us.
Likewise the root of his hate can be linked to his father whom was an outspoken anti-gay activist as well as a radical Islamic element that preaches hate towards those not of “the faith”
Have I once stated ever to take away all guns? No. Your argument is tired and old by misrepresenting and reinterpreting MY ACTUAL words to suit your narrative that I am some gun fearing libtard.
I served my nation in uniform for 8 years, and I have pointed a loaded weapon at a human being before. So please do not tell me that asking for reasonable licencing, background checks, registration, and insurance for the handling of a deadly weapon is somehow me being out of touch or uneducated.
Take that viewpoint and go hang out with the Trump-sycophant masses.
I suppose the problem is that bows and knives are not as efficient at killing people as rifles. So when they fall into the wrong hands it has a disproportionate negative impact on the people who get shot.
Police officers are civilians if you only look at as civilian vs. military, but they’re not civilians if you consider an elected, appointed, or employed civil servant to be a functionary of government. Civilian can mean more than just “not military personnel.” That’s just the most common usage. I think someone having the authority to arrest, ticket, and use force up to a deadly level is not a civilian.
a police that draws a dividing line between officers and citizens and defines them as different classes is doubleplusungood. to pull a Godwin: the Gestapo is a good example for a LEA with a self-conception outside of the civil org.
I agree that it’s bad and I’d love to see it changed, but it is nonetheless a reality. Police are considered non-civilians for the purposes of society and are privileged with special treatment and greater deference and support from the system. It’s not preferable, but it’s true.
Footage: Store Owner Defends self and store with AR-15 rifle against 3 armed robbers
There was another where a gang pulls into a man’s driveway in a home invasion, and is chased out.
Why not join the real world, where gangs of cowards sometimes attack and hurt and kill people, instead of the sparkly unicorn fantasy land you inhabit?
