The stats quoted above refer to/are a tally of DEATHS 'period', Doc...not just murders. Death is death...whether by a doc's mistake or the actions of a loon with a gun, the deceased is just as dead and that's why they're both included. However, I 'get' your distinction and your point.
Should guns be banned in the United States? Your thought.
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
The stats quoted above refer to/are a tally of DEATHS 'period', Doc...not just murders. Death is death...whether by a doc's mistake or the actions of a loon with a gun, the deceased is just as dead and that's why they're both included. However, I 'get' your distinction and your point.
In my county, 25% of the population are licensed and responsible concealed weapons carriers.
Should guns be banned, there would be a similar increase of criminals here. No one would simply "turn 'em in". "Gee officer, I'd like to help you, but all of my guns were lost in a boating accident". Or something like that.
Should guns be banned, there would be a similar increase of criminals here. No one would simply "turn 'em in". "Gee officer, I'd like to help you, but all of my guns were lost in a boating accident". Or something like that.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Well said Jimbo, I totally agree physicians set out to cure. Sometimes errors are made and that is human. On the other hand terrorist's aim is to kill. I am surprised that anyone would draw comparisons between the two.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Now back to the subject. Should guns be banned in the U.S.A.?
No. The right to bear arms is part of our cultural heritage....that right should stay.
What needs to be worked on and refined is to what degree can we bear arms...?? What's wrong with everyone having to register their firearm and observe some reasonable limits as to use? Not in schools, limit on number or caliber, no fully auto, etc....
I have shot guns and a 9mm pistol. Nobody is taking those away from me. They're safely locked up behind biometric locks in a gun safe.
Just remember, guns don't kill people...bullets kill people.
What needs to be worked on and refined is to what degree can we bear arms...?? What's wrong with everyone having to register their firearm and observe some reasonable limits as to use? Not in schools, limit on number or caliber, no fully auto, etc....
I have shot guns and a 9mm pistol. Nobody is taking those away from me. They're safely locked up behind biometric locks in a gun safe.
Just remember, guns don't kill people...bullets kill people.
For starters, ask those from whom Hitler took guns. THEY could tell you what's the matter with it.
"No law infringing..."
WHY is that so hard to grasp/understand?
Pat
Supporter
In Florida, like many states, we have tough laws. They require that a felon who used a gun to commit a crime, such as armed robbery, serve at least 10 years in prison. Firing a gun increases the penalty to a 20-year prison term and shooting a person bumps it to 25 years to life. In addition, any felon who even possessed a gun, regardless of whether it was used during a crime, must serve a three-year prison term. But we still have "gun deaths".
The issue here is that some want to restrict lawful gun owners. That's like blaming all cell phone users because texting while driving kills 6,000 annually in the U.S. alone.
1.8 million emergency room visits occur because someone falls out of bed. Should we require everyone to sleep on the floor? Falls produce an odds of dying of 1 in 184. Assault by firearm odds of dying are much lower at 1 in 300.
It seems to me the problem is unlawful gun owners. Convicted felons, those mentally impaired and children aren't allowed to have guns now. It's illegal with harsh penalties. Yet, street gangs brandish weapons with impunity. According to a recent survey, only 35 percent of homicides in Chicago are solved; 22 percent in New Orleans and 21 percent in Detroit. I find that pretty disturbing. Maybe energy would be better spent going after the murderers than obsessing over lawful gun owners.
The basis of this thread is the proposition that firearms are inherently a much greater risk than terrorism. Of course, it is very rare that a gun discharges itself and the instances of that are negligible and always have a root cause based on someone doing something stupid.
However, the risk from firearms is one, unlike terrorism, than can reasonably managed. Here are some tips. If you:
a. Are suicidal
b. A member of a criminal gang
c. Commit violent felonies and/or are prone to violent interaction with law enforcement
d. Do your pharmaceutical shopping at 2AM or from unlicensed street vendors
e. Have never received proper firearms training
-owning a gun is a pretty bad idea.
You might have, like driving intoxicated, significantly lowered your chances for survival. Don't do those things and your chances of succumbing to gun violence is far less than the risks you encounter using your bed, shower or stove.
However, the threat from terrorism by it's nature doesn't allow for reasonable precautions and risk mitigation. For you or a loved one may be a victim of terrorism if you:
a. Work in a high rise office building
b. Are running a marathon
c. Travel by plane, bus or subway
d. Receiving routine medical treatment immediately prior to and on return from deployment
e. Date a Muslim - 91 percent of all honor-related killings around the world are carried out by Muslims (84% in US, 96% in Europe).
f. Convert to Christianity (1 out of 3 British Muslims aged 16 to 24 believe that Muslim apostates should be executed.)
g. And most recently, sitting at your receptionist desk.
But then like the use of a firearm, you can do something stupid like take that cool job offer in Baghdad, Mosul or Ramadi.
The issue here is that some want to restrict lawful gun owners. That's like blaming all cell phone users because texting while driving kills 6,000 annually in the U.S. alone.
1.8 million emergency room visits occur because someone falls out of bed. Should we require everyone to sleep on the floor? Falls produce an odds of dying of 1 in 184. Assault by firearm odds of dying are much lower at 1 in 300.
It seems to me the problem is unlawful gun owners. Convicted felons, those mentally impaired and children aren't allowed to have guns now. It's illegal with harsh penalties. Yet, street gangs brandish weapons with impunity. According to a recent survey, only 35 percent of homicides in Chicago are solved; 22 percent in New Orleans and 21 percent in Detroit. I find that pretty disturbing. Maybe energy would be better spent going after the murderers than obsessing over lawful gun owners.
The basis of this thread is the proposition that firearms are inherently a much greater risk than terrorism. Of course, it is very rare that a gun discharges itself and the instances of that are negligible and always have a root cause based on someone doing something stupid.
However, the risk from firearms is one, unlike terrorism, than can reasonably managed. Here are some tips. If you:
a. Are suicidal
b. A member of a criminal gang
c. Commit violent felonies and/or are prone to violent interaction with law enforcement
d. Do your pharmaceutical shopping at 2AM or from unlicensed street vendors
e. Have never received proper firearms training
-owning a gun is a pretty bad idea.
You might have, like driving intoxicated, significantly lowered your chances for survival. Don't do those things and your chances of succumbing to gun violence is far less than the risks you encounter using your bed, shower or stove.
However, the threat from terrorism by it's nature doesn't allow for reasonable precautions and risk mitigation. For you or a loved one may be a victim of terrorism if you:
a. Work in a high rise office building
b. Are running a marathon
c. Travel by plane, bus or subway
d. Receiving routine medical treatment immediately prior to and on return from deployment
e. Date a Muslim - 91 percent of all honor-related killings around the world are carried out by Muslims (84% in US, 96% in Europe).
f. Convert to Christianity (1 out of 3 British Muslims aged 16 to 24 believe that Muslim apostates should be executed.)
g. And most recently, sitting at your receptionist desk.
But then like the use of a firearm, you can do something stupid like take that cool job offer in Baghdad, Mosul or Ramadi.
Last edited:
^^^ +1
I've never understood - and no anti-gunner has EVER been able to explain this to me - how limiting a law-abiding person's gun rights (even to the point of outlawing guns completely) somehow mystically and magically changes the behavior of criminals.
Anyone care to tackle that one?
I've never understood - and no anti-gunner has EVER been able to explain this to me - how limiting a law-abiding person's gun rights (even to the point of outlawing guns completely) somehow mystically and magically changes the behavior of criminals.
Anyone care to tackle that one?
Because criminals dont give a toss about anything or anybody. There would need to be a serious crackdown on crime and zero tolerance on illegal gun ownership to make any difference at all.
Bob
Pat
Supporter
I certainly agree but there's this:
Gangs and Politicians in Chicago: An Unholy Alliance | Chicago magazine | January 2012
Having worked for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, I was horrified to discover that there is a culture within the prison system in which you are held in high esteem if you used a weapon in the commission of your crime.
Additionally, in response to the gang-related issue, it is quite well known that certain gangs will have their members commit weapons-related offenses so that they will get sent to prison...and the gang then attempts to get them assigned to a prison where they want a "hit" to go down. These criminals are institutionalized...they function VERY well in the prisons and often are part of the top tier on the "food chain". Prison is not an issue for them, it is a way of life, one with which they are certainly comfortable. I do know that TDCJ makes every effort to avoid placing "offenders" (P.C. BS!!) into units where they may have avowed enemies, but with new "offenders" constantly entering the prison system and others leaving as they satisfy their sentences, it is a very difficult task. There are also Gang Renunciation Programs...which usually results in the "offender' who renounces his gang affiliation being placed into a cell by themselves, let out only one hour a day to shower and exercise...all so that they cannot be the subject of a "hit" because they renounced their gang membership. Gangs are serious and don't mind killing a few people to get their points across.
The only real way to stop gun-related deaths is to ensure that there are no guns...but, that's not possible with every country having a military presence. Guns have a way of disappearing...even in the military...AND, not to mention, we DO have a constitutional amendment that guarantees that private citizens can possess weapons. Contrary to those who think it is a RIGHT that should be infringed upon in NO MANNER, I believe that rights come with responsibilities, and one of those should be proving that you are capable of using a gun appropriately and only for the purpose of self-defense, licensed hunting or sport shooting. Any other form of gun use should have severe legal penalties, and use of a gun while committing ANY crime should be a felony with LONG mandatory sentences.
IMHO....
Cheers!
Doug
Additionally, in response to the gang-related issue, it is quite well known that certain gangs will have their members commit weapons-related offenses so that they will get sent to prison...and the gang then attempts to get them assigned to a prison where they want a "hit" to go down. These criminals are institutionalized...they function VERY well in the prisons and often are part of the top tier on the "food chain". Prison is not an issue for them, it is a way of life, one with which they are certainly comfortable. I do know that TDCJ makes every effort to avoid placing "offenders" (P.C. BS!!) into units where they may have avowed enemies, but with new "offenders" constantly entering the prison system and others leaving as they satisfy their sentences, it is a very difficult task. There are also Gang Renunciation Programs...which usually results in the "offender' who renounces his gang affiliation being placed into a cell by themselves, let out only one hour a day to shower and exercise...all so that they cannot be the subject of a "hit" because they renounced their gang membership. Gangs are serious and don't mind killing a few people to get their points across.
The only real way to stop gun-related deaths is to ensure that there are no guns...but, that's not possible with every country having a military presence. Guns have a way of disappearing...even in the military...AND, not to mention, we DO have a constitutional amendment that guarantees that private citizens can possess weapons. Contrary to those who think it is a RIGHT that should be infringed upon in NO MANNER, I believe that rights come with responsibilities, and one of those should be proving that you are capable of using a gun appropriately and only for the purpose of self-defense, licensed hunting or sport shooting. Any other form of gun use should have severe legal penalties, and use of a gun while committing ANY crime should be a felony with LONG mandatory sentences.
IMHO....
Cheers!
Doug
Pat
Supporter
If that's true, then you must contend that the same should be said for speech, assembly, media, worship, vote or other "RIGHTS" afforded in the constitution.
So I know, only those that can prove they are capable, educated people who accept responsibility should be able to vote.
A right's a right... right???
Hoplophobia must be contagious... I wonder if it's anything like the more dangerous Ablutophobia, Amaxophobia or my favorite Allodoxaphobia.
I am expressing an opinion and questions from a country that does not have the right to bear arms. I suppose I will get flack but that comes with the territory.
I understand that the right to bear arms meant the British are coming when it was introduced. But what is the army now thats coming now days?
I feel from what I have read that the USA has so many firearms that even if they wanted to they could not disarm.
I do not for the life of me understand Cliff's idea that bullets kill???? Unless a firearm goes off accidentally with no human action??? Guns only kill with a Human being initiating the action! People kill people with the firearms as a tool without one they could not kill as effectively. Thats why we have many knife crimes
I have no problem with a firearm thats legally held securely stored for hunting or self defence. Up to a point. Should not in general the police be your defence? A weapon has no unique ownership it can be taken and used against you.
When I was a kid 1960's I lived in a pub in the east end of London the local lag told us in conversation that he would never go out on a job (robbing) tooled up (having a firearm) Because he got the Cat and Nine tails You need a deterrent that works.
We have had many times for firearms to be surrendered; but it the criminals that do not hand them in.
Surely with the cases of murder of children by crazed gunmen a line should be put under the availablity of access of firearms. I would of thought that automatic military weapons should be banned.
I do not buy into comparisons since the firearm only has one purpose to kill or maim!!!
I do know that when you have firearms criminals armed themselves as well because of this.
Of course I have no solution I am not that clever. But when the "West was Won" the time of the gun being the law was consigned to the past. It seems to be going the other way now!!??
Regards Allan
I understand that the right to bear arms meant the British are coming when it was introduced. But what is the army now thats coming now days?
I feel from what I have read that the USA has so many firearms that even if they wanted to they could not disarm.
I do not for the life of me understand Cliff's idea that bullets kill???? Unless a firearm goes off accidentally with no human action??? Guns only kill with a Human being initiating the action! People kill people with the firearms as a tool without one they could not kill as effectively. Thats why we have many knife crimes
I have no problem with a firearm thats legally held securely stored for hunting or self defence. Up to a point. Should not in general the police be your defence? A weapon has no unique ownership it can be taken and used against you.
When I was a kid 1960's I lived in a pub in the east end of London the local lag told us in conversation that he would never go out on a job (robbing) tooled up (having a firearm) Because he got the Cat and Nine tails You need a deterrent that works.
We have had many times for firearms to be surrendered; but it the criminals that do not hand them in.
Surely with the cases of murder of children by crazed gunmen a line should be put under the availablity of access of firearms. I would of thought that automatic military weapons should be banned.
I do not buy into comparisons since the firearm only has one purpose to kill or maim!!!
I do know that when you have firearms criminals armed themselves as well because of this.
Of course I have no solution I am not that clever. But when the "West was Won" the time of the gun being the law was consigned to the past. It seems to be going the other way now!!??
Regards Allan
"Should not in general the police be your defence?"
When seconds count, the police are minutes away (or hours). Think of an armed (with whatever, not necessarily a firearm) assailant breaking into your home in the wee hours and threatening you, or your family's life. If you could call the police would they be able to save you?
When seconds count, the police are minutes away (or hours). Think of an armed (with whatever, not necessarily a firearm) assailant breaking into your home in the wee hours and threatening you, or your family's life. If you could call the police would they be able to save you?
Al-Queda and ISIS by their own declarations, drug cartels, drug addicts, home invasion yo-yos, career criminals, muggers, street gangs and other assorted vermin for starters.
There is nothing as useless as a locked-up gun in an emergency...unless it's an unloaded locked-up gun.
Molleur already addressed that - and his take on it was dead on.
Oh, they have been...unconstitutionally, BTW ('no law infringing', remember?)...but, they have been. So now, for the most part, only criminals own 'em. 'Ain't' THAT a comforting thought.
Oh, if only that were true. But, it isn't.
Last edited:
Uuuuuh...just where in the Second Amendment did The Founders declare any of those to be 'prior condidtions' that had to be met before one could exercise his R-I-G-H-T to keep and bear???
'Agree completely.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
I guess you have laws that require that you to do that, but if an armed intruder breaks into your house that safe better be handy and easy to open whilst under stress.
I have never understood laws that require a weapon used for self protection be locked In a safe.
Of course in my country guns are banned so only criminals have guns. Gives them a big advantage.
'Twould appear no one does...
I say lock up the gun totting criminals and throw away the keys, lets be brutally honest they cost the public a fortune whether they are in jail or not so just keep banging them up until the message is loud and crystal clear. You guys would probably benefit from an Australia like the one we used to have where you can off load all the scum with a one way ticket.
Bob
Bob
