Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 15:25:18 GMT
At least the guy is fully admitting to abortion being murder. Good for him. |
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Feb 16, 2018 16:19:51 GMT
That's a fair point, because even though we have gun bans here and over in places like Australia and such they are relatively recent we don't know what the ramifications will be in say 100 years because of it, also there is a big difference between our countries, for one thing no other nation puts so much meaning behind owning a gun as America does imo, but also even within America there are so many different regions, like for us in the UK when gun laws came in we had 4 separate regions in regards to large populaces to work around being Ireland, England, Scotland & Wales, that's relatively easy to find a balance between compared to the 50 states of the US, maybe that's the key though if gun violence is worse in the more lenient states but better in the restrictive ones then try and make the laws of those states the laws for the entire country.
The thing is it makes me laugh because in so many ways the US & UK are so similar to the point it seems when one does something the other will also follow suit, but then in some ways we are so different it's a wonder we even use the same language sometimes, and guns are one of those issues where we are just so different it is kind of funny.
You have an excellent point about there being so many different cultures in the US. It's a massive country. That's why I believe that power needs to reside more in the state and local governments than in the federal government (as was originally intended). They are better equipped to understand and deal with the challenges that their people face. But the federal government keeps making power grabs and trying to force one-size-fits-all rules and regulations on people. It just doesn't work in such a diverse country. The federal government exists to protect our basic rights, provide a national defense, negotiate with foreign countries, and pave the roads so economic activity can be facilitated between the states. Other than that, they don't really need to do much else. Let the state governments do the governing. I don't know if they are but I would think having federal laws/regulations should work as the bare minimum/most relaxed law or standards people need to know and meet, which allows each state then their right to either adhere to the minimum standard depending on which issue or be more restrictive, but atleast that way theres a basic framework for the laws of the country to be based around, as I don't know if it's true but I heard some state laws/regulations/requirements can be more relaxed than the federal ones which to me makes the federal ones existing seem pointless, , also I would hate to think that when taking a trip out of state you may need to study another states laws or face possibly getting nicked for breaking their laws, seems like too much of a headache.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 16, 2018 16:19:52 GMT
You were only able to mention 1-2 shooting incidents for each of those countries you mentioned, with the incidents spread over a number of years. In comparison, the US has already had 18 public shootings in 2018, and it's only February. That's more than all of the examples you mentioned combined. There have not been 18 shootings. This was a false number that every news outlet ran with. Even one is too many so I am not arguing that, I am just saying this 18 number is crazy. It is actually 3. I believe that 18 number encompasses all incidents where a firearm was discharged in public, even if it was accidental. If you're looking for just intentional shootings (where the shooter clearly intended harm on another) then reports differ from listing 3-8 incidents in 2018. |
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Feb 16, 2018 16:45:33 GMT
There have not been 18 shootings. This was a false number that every news outlet ran with. Even one is too many so I am not arguing that, I am just saying this 18 number is crazy. It is actually 3. I believe that 18 number encompasses all incidents where a firearm was discharged in public, even if it was accidental. If you're looking for just intentional shootings (where the shooter clearly intended harm on another) then reports differ from listing 3-8 incidents in 2018. There is a very clear message being sent when reporting that number. It is false. It has an agenda. People say there has been 18 shootings in 2018 and people flip out. You posted the same thing with no context. Some of those were accidental discharges, suicides, etc. However, but just making that statement, people without any knowledge of the situation assume what the media in this case want them to assume. The media has a tendency to do this with everything, which is why I hate watching the news today. The goal is always to get clicks and be first, accuracy be damned. |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 16, 2018 17:04:13 GMT
I believe that 18 number encompasses all incidents where a firearm was discharged in public, even if it was accidental. If you're looking for just intentional shootings (where the shooter clearly intended harm on another) then reports differ from listing 3-8 incidents in 2018. There is a very clear message being sent when reporting that number. It is false. It has an agenda. People say there has been 18 shootings in 2018 and people flip out. You posted the same thing with no context. Some of those were accidental discharges, suicides, etc. However, but just making that statement, people without any knowledge of the situation assume what the media in this case want them to assume. The media has a tendency to do this with everything, which is why I hate watching the news today. The goal is always to get clicks and be first, accuracy be damned. But the number wasn't false. A gun "shoots" when it discharges a bullet, therefore all of these incidents were correctly identified as public gun shootings. Now whether the news tried to misrepresent this statistic... well, that's nothing new. The news always try to find the most exaggerated headlines so they get the most shock value out of their coverage. Or it could have been an honest mistake. They research on the statistic for public shootings and any incident where a firearm is discharged in public will be listed in that statistic. To be frank, I find the accidental discharges far more disturbing than the premeditated murders. Premeditated murder implies that the shooter had to put effort and thought into what they did. The accidental discharges mean that guns were so darn accessible that people not completely knowledgeable on their use were easily able to get their hands on one. |
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Aug 6, 2019 17:25:04 GMT
The reason why we have the 2nd Amendment is because the founders believed that citizens should be able to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. And if you think that a democratic government going tyrannical is unrealistic, just crack open a history book. There's no such thing as "true" gun control. Someone is always going to have weapons. Do you want the only people with guns to be criminals and the government (the same government that many believe are Nazis who support cops "assassinating" black people out in the streets)? Obviously not. The first thing the actual Nazis did before rounding up the Jews in Germany was make sure they couldn't defend themselves. So the debate isn't even really about owning guns. It's about the right to defend yourself. And the reality is that you can't do that without weapons. All that said, I think there is room for debate when discussing if there should be more rules and regulations around what kinds of weapons you can have. But the idea that we can just "ban" guns is foolish. It's neither reasonable nor desirable. The problem with the "protect us from a tyrannical government!" Is that it was written at the time when Muskets were mostly used. Good luck fending off multiple drones bombing your ass. |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Aug 6, 2019 18:32:56 GMT
Over 270 people have died this year alone from active shooter incidents in the U.S. (not from usual gun crime). That's not to mention all the previous years. If that's not enough then nothing ever will be. We always say that things change when there are deaths involved. Well, deaths ARE involved. Many of them over many years. And there are people still defending this. I don't get it.
In Japan, in 2015, there were under ten gun related crimes. Under ten.
In New Zealand, there was one active shooter incident... guns banned! Period.
I love America, I love being an American, but America is all messed up...
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Aug 6, 2019 18:44:37 GMT
News say the gunman used a .223 caliber AR-15. Where the did the kid get a rifle like that? Are guns like these readily available for sale in the US? That sort of thing it harder to get, but still available. Its really the sort of thing that no one but the police and the military should have access to. That sort of weapon has only one purpose... and that's to kill people. It is not a hunting rifle. You don't take that out to forest to hunt Deer. It's intent is too spray bullets at enemy soldiers. Its outrageous that any civilian needs to own that, criminal or home owner.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 6, 2019 19:02:34 GMT
An interesting read. www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081Really, this says it all: In America, money talks. We put 'In God We Trust' on our currency for Christ's sake. As HauntedKnight pointed out, the 'protection from a tyrannical government' argument is a sham. If the government wants you, they're going to get you. The only question would be the amount of collateral damage. I'm less concerned with the shadow government coming to get me than I am of my son getting blown away in a school shooting. The President is now falling back on the old 'too many violent video games in our culture' excuse for the carnage. Look at the charts in the article I posted. I'm pretty sure the UK has access to the same violent video games we do here in the states. Know what they don't have access to? |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Aug 6, 2019 19:36:47 GMT
Over 270 people have died this year alone from active shooter incidents in the U.S. (not from usual gun crime). That's not to mention all the previous years. If that's not enough then nothing ever will be. We always say that things change when there are deaths involved. Well, deaths ARE involved. Many of them over many years. And there are people still defending this. I don't get it.
In Japan, in 2015, there were under ten gun related crimes. Under ten.
In New Zealand, there was one active shooter incident... guns banned! Period.
I love America, I love being an American, but America is all messed up... Here's two questions then, from someone who is not American and is not always up to date with news. 1. Have gun laws in America gotten stricter or less strict in recent years compared with previous years? 2. What's the main theory for the cause in rise of shooting incidents?
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Aug 6, 2019 20:27:16 GMT
2041, when China & Russia invade.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Aug 7, 2019 1:40:50 GMT
Never.
Limitations will come, but they’ll never be outlawed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2019 2:33:40 GMT
The reason why we have the 2nd Amendment is because the founders believed that citizens should be able to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. And if you think that a democratic government going tyrannical is unrealistic, just crack open a history book. There's no such thing as "true" gun control. Someone is always going to have weapons. Do you want the only people with guns to be criminals and the government (the same government that many believe are Nazis who support cops "assassinating" black people out in the streets)? Obviously not. The first thing the actual Nazis did before rounding up the Jews in Germany was make sure they couldn't defend themselves. So the debate isn't even really about owning guns. It's about the right to defend yourself. And the reality is that you can't do that without weapons. All that said, I think there is room for debate when discussing if there should be more rules and regulations around what kinds of weapons you can have. But the idea that we can just "ban" guns is foolish. It's neither reasonable nor desirable. The problem with the "protect us from a tyrannical government!" Is that it was written at the time when Muskets were mostly used. Good luck fending off multiple drones bombing your ass. LOL, this thread was started when Muskets were mostly used too!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Aug 7, 2019 16:52:31 GMT
Over 270 people have died this year alone from active shooter incidents in the U.S. (not from usual gun crime). That's not to mention all the previous years. If that's not enough then nothing ever will be. We always say that things change when there are deaths involved. Well, deaths ARE involved. Many of them over many years. And there are people still defending this. I don't get it.
In Japan, in 2015, there were under ten gun related crimes. Under ten.
In New Zealand, there was one active shooter incident... guns banned! Period.
I love America, I love being an American, but America is all messed up... Here's two questions then, from someone who is not American and is not always up to date with news. 1. Have gun laws in America gotten stricter or less strict in recent years compared with previous years? 2. What's the main theory for the cause in rise of shooting incidents? It's still ridiculously easy to get firearms here, and it varies from state to state. I don't know if there's a main theory for the cause, but I know they couldn't happen if guns weren't so readily available to the populace. Nobody is suggesting mass shootings happen because guns exist, they're suggesting guns make mass shootings possible, which is inarguable. Would these nuts, whatever their motivation may be, have been able to kill as many people with a knife?
|
|
