b smooth 202
Banned
- 10,295
- 106
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
there is no easy solution to this problem at all because guns are so prevalent in this culture...you reap what you sow...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
1. restrict them more and illegal purchases will rise, which are easier than legal purchases honestly.A lot of good points in here. I think it should be restricted more. Yes if people really want guns they may get them but just make it harder to obtain them.
Also why can any civilian buy an automatic weapon? What purpose do they serve to an average person? You gonna go hunting with your AK?
But in the end its a cultural problem. We need to change as a society to become more peaceful and less violent in order for anything to have a permanent change
Yeah, so this shooting was most likely a false flag attack meant to boost support for the UN gun grab treaty. It's not coincidence.
You have to realize that when they take our guns away from us, then WE are defenseless.
Oh nevermind, what do I know.
This is precisely why we need to look at how Norway did things.I understand the reaction but that is supposedly part of the plan. Situation happens, we react, the make us feel safe, they attack us, we are without. Be sure that this is what you REALLY want OP.![]()
So if they take our guns away and there are unreleated riots in urban areas for WHATEVER reason and we aren't able to defend ourselves in the most efficient manner. Then what? Just something to think about.
LOLgo back to fashion blogging; this only creates more of a chance for harm plus he was wearing a bulletproof vest
adding another shooting means the murder would have started spraying even more bullets in rage
Are you ******g serious? These people aren't even in the ground yet and you people start with this ********?
Did that spoon make you fat? Did that car make you drive drunk? Did the beer force itself down your throat?
Its the people. Not the objects.
Yeah, so this shooting was most likely a false flag attack meant to boost support for the UN gun grab treaty. It's not coincidence.
You have to realize that when they take our guns away from us, then WE are defenseless.
Oh nevermind, what do I know.
Wearing a bullet proof vest and throwing ******g TEAR GAS into the crowd. But, no, a bunch of untrained, panicked civilians are totally going to be equipped to handle the situation
Did that spoon make you fat? Did that car make you drive drunk? Did the beer force itself down your throat?
Its the people. Not the objects.
Like the other guy said...
Change the gun laws all you want, if someone wants something bad enough, he'll get it. Its like car thieves. You can put whatever device on your car to prevent it from getting stolen, but if the thieves want it bad enough they will take your car.
1. restrict them more and illegal purchases will rise, which are easier than legal purchases honestly.
2. AK's have single fire. many states have laws against having a certain amount of rounds in your clip for hunting. for that reason they make shortened clips for assault rifles.
I hear you man but obviously if the laws are stricter then illegal purchases will rise (by definition basically). But these nerdy kids who can go (with mental health issues) and obtain a gun legally probably don't have any connection to buying them illegally (generalization i have no clue how hard it would be to obtain a gun illegally). But i just think that if there was a waiting list or some sort of background check involved in every sale in every state it would help out some what. Maybe if the angry kid has to wait 2 weeks before he can get a fire arm he will calm down and actually think about what he is about to do. But these people are crazy and prob would just do it anyway. I just don't think it could hurt that bad to have slightly stricter laws against it.
Its good to know they have restrictions of some sort. But any gun with an automatic setting i don't see the need for. Maybe i am naive but what are you going to do with it. What good purpose can there be to shoot bullets that fast?
I wish it was natural selection some times with 0 weapons. If you wanted to take something from some one then you take your chances that person could beat you up. If you don't want to get robbed or killed hit the gym and learn some MMA moves or boxing lessons. Would help america get into better shape. But now just buy a gun because you can just shoot some one if something bad is going to happen. What ever happen to just catching a beat down. Got to get killed over the smallest things these days.
The way i see it, Pandora's box has been open for the 500 years. Theres literally no way to regulate the movement of guns in America now (other than door to door searches, which i guarantee will lead to revolts and probably much worse). Think about it like this. If we stopped importing, producing, and selling guns to civillians, there are still enough legal guns in America to arm every adult. If you take into account illegal/unregistered guns, i'd bet there are enough guns for every person living in this country.
When you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns
This right here is dead on.Anything that has been regulated....alcohol, drugs, online file sharing, etc. does not stop someone who wants it from getting it. There are always ways of obtaining what you want and if someone is that determined to commit such a heinous act, then you should not be naive enough to think that stricter gun laws would prevent this clown from obtaining a firearm.
![]()
How do countries like Norway and Japan have such low homicide rates? What are they doing right/differently?
[h1]National Review: Gun Control Doesn't Work[/h1]
by David Rittgers
![]()
Enlarge Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images
McDonald v. City of Chicago brings the law up to speed with reality. According to David Rittgers, a generation from now, legal and policy discussions will look back and see gun control for the sham that it has always been.
text size A A A
June 29, 2010
David Rittgers is an attorney and legal policy analyst at the Cato Institute. He served three tours in Afghanistan as a Special Forces officer and continues to serve as a reserve judge advocate.
The Supreme Court's rejection of Chicago's handgun ban in McDonald v. City of Chicago is more than a recognition that the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as the federal government. The McDonald decision is a harbinger for the end of gun prohibition as an idea. The simple, undeniable truth is that gun control does not work.
McDonald brings the law up to speed with reality, where advocates of gun control have been wrong since the issue became a national discussion.
Strict gun-control policies have failed to deliver on their essential promise: that denying law-abiding citizens access to the means of self-defense will somehow make them safer. This should come as no surprise, since gun control has always been about control, not guns.
Racism created gun control in America. Confronted with the prospect of armed freedmen who could stand up for their rights, states across the South instituted gun-control regimes that took away the ability of blacks to defend themselves against the depravity of the Klan.
Fast forward to the 1960s, when a century of institutionalized racism began to come to an end. While racism was no longer the driving force, social change, the drug trade, and the assassination of several national figures turned gun control into an article of faith among progressive politicians. They saw the elimination of guns as the only way to counter the rapid increase of crime in inner cities.
Truly onerous gun control came to fruition only in a minority of jurisdictions, predominantly those run by Democrat machines. The District of Columbia enacted a registration requirement for all handguns in 1976, then closed the registry so that all guns not on the books could never be lawfully owned in the District. Chicago followed suit in 1983. With each failure of gun control, the rejoinder was to do it again, this time with feeling.
Since the Heller case invalidated the District of Columbia's handgun ban two years ago, Chicago has served as the gun-control capital of the United States. Not coincidentally, Chicago is a dangerous place to live. Two weekends ago, 52 people were shot, eight fatally. Local politicians frequently ponder calling out the National Guard to patrol Chicago's streets.
Three times in the last month, Chicago residents have defended their homes or businesses with "illegal" guns. In the first, an 80-year-old Navy veteran killed a felon who broke into his home. In the second, a man shot and wounded a fugitive who burst into the man's home while running from the police. In the third, the owner of a pawn shop killed one of three robbers in self-defense, sending the other two running.
The Illinois legislature, confronted with clearly justified shootings like these before, created an affirmative defense for those who violate local gun bans when unregistered guns are used in self-defense. Then–state senator Barack Obama voted against this law, which passed by an overwhelming majority and over then-governor Rod Blagojevich's veto.
In passing this exception, Illinois recognized the basic injustice of the Chicago gun ban. Otherwise law-abiding citizens are victimized at a high rate. Chicagoans cannot depend on the police to defend them, cannot sue the city because the law protects officials from liability for failure to protect them, and are barred from effective means of self-defense.
Now that the Supreme Court has spoken, the de facto ban against self-defense will be overturned and Chicagoans will not have to rely on the discretion of prosecutors and the benevolence of legislators to affirm their inalienable right to self-defense.
Advocates of gun control will not be swayed by the Supreme Court's holding in McDonald. No matter the evidence, the rallying cry will continue: If gun control "saves just one life" it will be worth it. This plea ignores the irony of crusading for individual safety by disarming all of society. That logic can now be squarely turned on the advocates of gun control. If it saves just one life — or many, since jurisdictions with more legally owned (and carried) guns tend to have less violent crime — we should create a sensible legal framework for gun ownership that does not hamper the right of individuals to exercise self-defense.
A generation from now, legal and policy discussions will look back and see gun control for the sham that it has always been. The real shame is that it took decades of political action, millions of dollars in litigation, and thousands of lives lost to end the preposterous idea that governments can reduce the number of victims of violent crime by first taking away their means of resistance.
excellent question and one that isn't asked enough. many developed countries have hugely lower murder rates/gun crimes than us. what is it about american society (legal/socio-economic...) that make's guns more prevalent and more utilized than any other country? why can canada post lower numbers than us? they're our next door neighbors, so it can't be geographic. is the gun problem a by product of the unregulated capitalist economy in the sense that more guns = more $$ for those who make them?
is it poverty? we aren't the only country with a poverty line...
is it that we as a government live by the guns/$$ > citizens opinions mentality?
srs btw...there really shouldn't be a reason why we can't be like other countries with minor gun problems...