FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
The case against gun control, by Mackenzie

The case against gun control, by Mackenzie

(10:49) Easy to pick holes in but the topic is not so straightforward. Do we need more gun control, less gun control, or no change? Answers below.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1808 days ago)
Causes of death by Firearms per year are 30,000 not 11,000. At least according to the NRA! Lies through statistics. *sigh*
ReplyVote up (1654)down (179)
Original comment
Causes of death by Firearms per year are 30,000 not 11,000. At least according to the NRA! Lies through statistics. *sigh*
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1808 days ago)
Could it be that you're looking at statistics that are different than what she quoted? She says "Firearm Homicides" and you are looking at "Gun deaths". The definition of Homicide is "The deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder"
ReplyVote up (182)down (188)
Original comment
Could it be that you're looking at statistics that are different than what she quoted? She says "Firearm Homicides" and you are looking at "Gun deaths". The definition of Homicide is "The deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder"
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: rational thought (1808 days ago)
WHAT the f u c k is wrong with you people.....11K or 30K DOES IT MATTER....the fact remains that lots of people are dead because of guns.....WAY more than in countries with gun control......WHY can't you see that it's the guns that are the problem!!! Jesus H Christ.....Morons!!
ReplyVote up (210)down (193)
Original comment
WHAT the f u c k is wrong with you people.....11K or 30K DOES IT MATTER....the fact remains that lots of people are dead because of guns.....WAY more than in countries with gun control......WHY can't you see that it's the guns that are the problem!!! Jesus H Christ.....Morons!!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1808 days ago)
Obviously you didn't listen very carefully. Guns control is not the problem. There are other countries that have as many guns as the US but the gun murder rate is lower. There are countries with gun control with higher gun murders. So how can you prove it to me that gun control is the problem? Also, do you really believe if we outlaw all guns, the gun related murders will go down in the US?
ReplyVote up (224)down (182)
Original comment
Obviously you didn't listen very carefully. Guns control is not the problem. There are other countries that have as many guns as the US but the gun murder rate is lower. There are countries with gun control with higher gun murders. So how can you prove it to me that gun control is the problem? Also, do you really believe if we outlaw all guns, the gun related murders will go down in the US?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: rational thought (1808 days ago)
Idiot.....I didn't say that gun control was the problem. Read again. I also didn't suggest outlawing all guns. Tit.
ReplyVote up (200)down (192)
Original comment
Idiot.....I didn't say that gun control was the problem. Read again. I also didn't suggest outlawing all guns. Tit.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1808 days ago)
My apologies. What are you suggesting to fix the problem then? Are you suggesting "Jesus H Christ"?
ReplyVote up (203)down (192)
Original comment
My apologies. What are you suggesting to fix the problem then? Are you suggesting "Jesus H Christ"?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Freeeeeeeeeeedommmmmmssss (1805 days ago)
You yanks keep allways talking blaa blaa blaa.. My freedoms. Funny that America is not the most free country in the world. European nations alot more free, but we cant be bothered yapping about day after day.. As you keep talking about your freedoms all the time.. could you define what do they mean ?
ReplyVote up (194)down (195)
Original comment
You yanks keep allways talking blaa blaa blaa.. My freedoms. Funny that America is not the most free country in the world. European nations alot more free, but we cant be bothered yapping about day after day.. As you keep talking about your freedoms all the time.. could you define what do they mean ?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: rational thought (1806 days ago)
Certainly NOT.....No such person as JHC has ever existed, and there is NO HISTORICAL proof of him either (Sorry Bible does not count as historical proof.....it's a fairy tale) Soooo...the Idea that the only thing that can stop a bad man with a gun......is a good man with a gun?.......so if the bad man couldn't..or at least the unsuspecting mental patient fruit loops who go round shooting up schools and campuses for no apparent reason, couldn't get hold of the guns so easily in the first place (as they are everywhere) it might not be needed to have a good person with a gun to stop them......f u c k me......It's not brain surgery!!! Much tighter controls, more rigidly policed.......Why would you need an assault rifle? Like I said....I didn't suggest outlawing all guns.....But MUCH stricter controls are needed. No sane person could possibly think that waould be unreasonable! Or should I open up a shop selling Abrams Tanks?
ReplyVote up (184)down (222)
Original comment
Certainly NOT.....No such person as JHC has ever existed, and there is NO HISTORICAL proof of him either (Sorry Bible does not count as historical proof.....it's a fairy tale) Soooo...the Idea that the only thing that can stop a bad man with a gun......is a good man with a gun?.......so if the bad man couldn't..or at least the unsuspecting mental patient fruit loops who go round shooting up schools and campuses for no apparent reason, couldn't get hold of the guns so easily in the first place (as they are everywhere) it might not be needed to have a good person with a gun to stop them......f u c k me......It's not brain surgery!!! Much tighter controls, more rigidly policed.......Why would you need an assault rifle? Like I said....I didn't suggest outlawing all guns.....But MUCH stricter controls are needed. No sane person could possibly think that waould be unreasonable! Or should I open up a shop selling Abrams Tanks?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1808 days ago)
Yes... that is the WHOLE point of my comment. Lying through statistics by using ONLY the homicide numbers.
ReplyVote up (199)down (204)
Original comment
Yes... that is the WHOLE point of my comment. Lying through statistics by using ONLY the homicide numbers.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1808 days ago)
At least Green Day got it right....American Idots. You used to be the envy of the rest of the world, now you just look like a bunch of moron hillbillies.
ReplyVote up (1363)down (256)
Original comment
At least Green Day got it right....American Idots. You used to be the envy of the rest of the world, now you just look like a bunch of moron hillbillies.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Buck39 (1808 days ago)
The paradigm used here is a very traditional one. But adhering to the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and in particular the section dealing with 'an oppressive government' presents a fascinating situation. The laws as they are passed in the US are done so either federally or by the states. In any case, the justice system has two principal branches - the courts and the police. One could argue that the Patriot Act, the Dept. of Homeland Security, and the CIA are all instruments of oppression. Would you support armed resistance against any of these agencies? And what of the police? If you go to YouTube and watch this video watch?v=mFjQKcwbTdY you will see some irrefutable examples of police brutality. Is it OK to pull a firearm on a police officer in this situation, as they are acting on behalf of the state? How do we define 'criminal'? Is it a crime to speak out against injustice, however it is perceived? Is it a crime to act on that perception? If someone, who is not legally or morally proven to be guilty of any crime uses their 2nd Amendment right to defend their way of life by shooting 'law enforcement officers' - is that now a crime? This is a genuinely interesting area and while I think that we should do without guns as much as possible, I'm not sure that I am 100% anti-gun.
ReplyVote up (373)down (215)
Original comment
The paradigm used here is a very traditional one. But adhering to the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and in particular the section dealing with 'an oppressive government' presents a fascinating situation. The laws as they are passed in the US are done so either federally or by the states. In any case, the justice system has two principal branches - the courts and the police. One could argue that the Patriot Act, the Dept. of Homeland Security, and the CIA are all instruments of oppression. Would you support armed resistance against any of these agencies? And what of the police? If you go to YouTube and watch this video watch?v=mFjQKcwbTdY you will see some irrefutable examples of police brutality. Is it OK to pull a firearm on a police officer in this situation, as they are acting on behalf of the state? How do we define 'criminal'? Is it a crime to speak out against injustice, however it is perceived? Is it a crime to act on that perception? If someone, who is not legally or morally proven to be guilty of any crime uses their 2nd Amendment right to defend their way of life by shooting 'law enforcement officers' - is that now a crime? This is a genuinely interesting area and while I think that we should do without guns as much as possible, I'm not sure that I am 100% anti-gun.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Just the stats, man (1808 days ago)
Yes, there are traffic deaths, isn't that why we have, um, traffic lights and speed limits? Yes, there are medical accidents and that's why we have medical procedures and safeguards. Regulation to minimise the harm? This piece is utter distortion and propaganda. The only objective statistic worth looking at is the firearm-related death rate (i.e. the proportion of deaths caused by firearms - accidental, homicide and suicide). In the USA, it's 10.2 per 100,000 annually. In the UK, it's 0.25 per 100,000 annually. In other words, you are more than 40 times more likely to be killed by a firearm in the USA than the UK. Mexico, said to be on the brink of being a narcostate, has 11.14 firearm deaths per 100,000 annually. Clearly if you believe there's any link between firearm ownership and firearm deaths, you're a surrendering, communist, apple-pie hating, pacifist traitor (etc. ad nauseam).
ReplyVote up (519)down (402)
Original comment
Yes, there are traffic deaths, isn't that why we have, um, traffic lights and speed limits? Yes, there are medical accidents and that's why we have medical procedures and safeguards. Regulation to minimise the harm? This piece is utter distortion and propaganda. The only objective statistic worth looking at is the firearm-related death rate (i.e. the proportion of deaths caused by firearms - accidental, homicide and suicide). In the USA, it's 10.2 per 100,000 annually. In the UK, it's 0.25 per 100,000 annually. In other words, you are more than 40 times more likely to be killed by a firearm in the USA than the UK. Mexico, said to be on the brink of being a narcostate, has 11.14 firearm deaths per 100,000 annually. Clearly if you believe there's any link between firearm ownership and firearm deaths, you're a surrendering, communist, apple-pie hating, pacifist traitor (etc. ad nauseam).
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1808 days ago)
Yes, we have traffic lights and speed limits. We also have gun control in the US too. What did you think -- anyone is allowed to own a gun? You cannot own a gun if you've been convicted of a crime that put you in prison for a year or more. If you're a fugitive. If you are addicted to any controlled substance. If you have been declared as mental defective or have been committed to a mental institution. Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa. People dishonorably discharged from the military. Anyone who renounced their United States citizenship. If you have soem typesof restraining orders. If you have been convicted of domestic violence.
ReplyVote up (217)down (208)
Original comment
Yes, we have traffic lights and speed limits. We also have gun control in the US too. What did you think -- anyone is allowed to own a gun? You cannot own a gun if you've been convicted of a crime that put you in prison for a year or more. If you're a fugitive. If you are addicted to any controlled substance. If you have been declared as mental defective or have been committed to a mental institution. Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa. People dishonorably discharged from the military. Anyone who renounced their United States citizenship. If you have soem typesof restraining orders. If you have been convicted of domestic violence.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: sammy19 (1807 days ago)
there are lies, dammed lies, and there are statistics...
ReplyVote up (234)down (186)
Original comment
there are lies, dammed lies, and there are statistics...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: The late Bill Hicks (1804 days ago)
Bill Hick - Relentless: "Like, I was over in England. You ever been to England, anyone, been to England? No one has handguns in England, not even the cops. True or false? True. Now-in England last year, they had fourteen deaths from handguns. FFFFFourteen. Now-the United States, and I think you know how we feel about handguns-woooo, I'm getting a warm tingly feeling just saying the ******* word, to be honest with you. I swear to you, I am hard. Twenty-three thousand deaths from handguns. Now let's go through those numbers again, because they're a little baffling at first glance. England, where no one has guns, fffffffourteen deaths. United States, and I think you know how we feel about guns-woooo, I'm getting a stiffy-twenty-three thousand deaths from handguns. But there's no connection, and you'd be a fool and a Communist to make one. There's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone. There have been studies made and there is no connection at all there. Yes. That's absolute proof. You know, fourteen deaths from handguns. Probably American tourists, too."
ReplyVote up (210)down (215)
Original comment
Bill Hick - Relentless: "Like, I was over in England. You ever been to England, anyone, been to England? No one has handguns in England, not even the cops. True or false? True. Now-in England last year, they had fourteen deaths from handguns. FFFFFourteen. Now-the United States, and I think you know how we feel about handguns-woooo, I'm getting a warm tingly feeling just saying the ******* word, to be honest with you. I swear to you, I am hard. Twenty-three thousand deaths from handguns. Now let's go through those numbers again, because they're a little baffling at first glance. England, where no one has guns, fffffffourteen deaths. United States, and I think you know how we feel about guns-woooo, I'm getting a stiffy-twenty-three thousand deaths from handguns. But there's no connection, and you'd be a fool and a Communist to make one. There's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone. There have been studies made and there is no connection at all there. Yes. That's absolute proof. You know, fourteen deaths from handguns. Probably American tourists, too."
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1802 days ago)
Latest comment: Right, there's no connection between the number of guns and the number of murders with guns. You can find example out there like Israel that has just as many guns but a low murder rate. So it's not guns killing people -- it's people killing people. The gun just happens to be the tool of choice. So can you give us more specific statistics about your precious England like how many stabbings, poisonings and other murders without guns there were? When you don't have a gun and need to murder someone, you find another tool to do it so they are being murdered in another way. Just like the mass killings in China at schools using knives instead of guns. And, by the way, I lived in England. It wasn't just a visit, it was for a few years. Now I'm back in the US and have no desire to go back. Have you ever been to the US? Hope that answers your question.
ReplyVote up (227)down (186)
Original comment
Latest comment: Right, there's no connection between the number of guns and the number of murders with guns. You can find example out there like Israel that has just as many guns but a low murder rate. So it's not guns killing people -- it's people killing people. The gun just happens to be the tool of choice. So can you give us more specific statistics about your precious England like how many stabbings, poisonings and other murders without guns there were? When you don't have a gun and need to murder someone, you find another tool to do it so they are being murdered in another way. Just like the mass killings in China at schools using knives instead of guns. And, by the way, I lived in England. It wasn't just a visit, it was for a few years. Now I'm back in the US and have no desire to go back. Have you ever been to the US? Hope that answers your question.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1807 days ago)
A lot of this is confused and some leaves out important logical steps even though the conclusion may be justified. On the founders intent, yes, they meant the people should have arms. The argument over the word 'militia' is entirely bogus. Words change meaning over time and gain new common uses. In the 18th century 'militia' meant "the entire body of a people in arms", not just an officially trained and armed body. Regulate most commonly meant to 'make regular', that is to facilitate, to make more effective, not 'to control' as it has come to mean since probably due to the activities of governments. The death statistics are where things start to get confused. The deaths from tobacco are wildly inflated as are probably the deaths from alcohol and drugs, this is mostly due to calling any accidental death or death by disease where a person used alcohol or drugs as an alcohol or drug death when it was only a contributing factor. Interestingly she doesn't go far enough when comparing U.S. homicides to European ones. The history of the homicide rate over time is most instructive. LINK Firearms were not exactly a convenient means of killing in the 1650's. You basically had a tube and you lit a pile of gunpowder with some burning rope. You really couldn't hit anything unless they stood still or lots of people were shooting as on a battlefield. Disarming the population has been popular in European countries for centuries of course, most kings did not much take to the idea of an armed peasantry but still you can see the homicide rate in America has ALWAYS been several times the European rate. I don't know why this should be so but any reasonable theory of why (e.g., it's increased by guns) the rate is higher now would have to explain this fact. Another thing she doesn’t go into is the homicide rate by ethnicity, the FBI keeps statistics on this and it turns out while the overall homicide rate in the U.S. is several times the European rate, the homicide rate among U.S. citizens of European ancestry is only a bit higher. This is because some minorities have murder rates several times the average, interestingly other minorities have rates even lower than European-Americans. Again this is something the theory of ‘guns increase homicide’ would have to address. Also she does not address the overall violent crime rate (murder, forcible rape and assault) which is higher in Europe than the U.S.. Forcible (as opposed to statutory) rape and assault are much more common crimes than murder, if the impact of guns is to be fairly judged surely we must consider whether they have a deterrent effect? Rape and assault are not as final as death but they can cripple and blight a life. Surely there must be some balance, if one innocent dies but ten rapes/assaults are prevented is that worth it? What about a hundred, a thousand? It’s a tough question but it should be asked. Comparing guns to cars or doctors as agents of destruction is instructive. Cars and doctors are tools of great utility, guns are more like dangerous fire extinguishers. Cars doctors and guns are all regulated the question is are they regulated most effectively. Cars and doctors kill innocent people but we can not do completely without cars and doctors or we would loose more than we gain. However if we restricted car use to essential travel we would undoubtedly save a vast number of lives and injuries. Likewise if we were more rigorous in weeding out careless, drunk and incompetent doctors (the AMA, that medieval guild prevents that) we could probably save several times the number lost to homicide. It’s complicated and I don’t pretend to know the answers but I would like to see some of these questions resolved before I support so drastic a change in the laws as banning guns.
ReplyVote up (199)down (211)
Original comment
A lot of this is confused and some leaves out important logical steps even though the conclusion may be justified. On the founders intent, yes, they meant the people should have arms. The argument over the word 'militia' is entirely bogus. Words change meaning over time and gain new common uses. In the 18th century 'militia' meant "the entire body of a people in arms", not just an officially trained and armed body. Regulate most commonly meant to 'make regular', that is to facilitate, to make more effective, not 'to control' as it has come to mean since probably due to the activities of governments. The death statistics are where things start to get confused. The deaths from tobacco are wildly inflated as are probably the deaths from alcohol and drugs, this is mostly due to calling any accidental death or death by disease where a person used alcohol or drugs as an alcohol or drug death when it was only a contributing factor. Interestingly she doesn't go far enough when comparing U.S. homicides to European ones. The history of the homicide rate over time is most instructive. LINK Firearms were not exactly a convenient means of killing in the 1650's. You basically had a tube and you lit a pile of gunpowder with some burning rope. You really couldn't hit anything unless they stood still or lots of people were shooting as on a battlefield. Disarming the population has been popular in European countries for centuries of course, most kings did not much take to the idea of an armed peasantry but still you can see the homicide rate in America has ALWAYS been several times the European rate. I don't know why this should be so but any reasonable theory of why (e.g., it's increased by guns) the rate is higher now would have to explain this fact. Another thing she doesn’t go into is the homicide rate by ethnicity, the FBI keeps statistics on this and it turns out while the overall homicide rate in the U.S. is several times the European rate, the homicide rate among U.S. citizens of European ancestry is only a bit higher. This is because some minorities have murder rates several times the average, interestingly other minorities have rates even lower than European-Americans. Again this is something the theory of ‘guns increase homicide’ would have to address. Also she does not address the overall violent crime rate (murder, forcible rape and assault) which is higher in Europe than the U.S.. Forcible (as opposed to statutory) rape and assault are much more common crimes than murder, if the impact of guns is to be fairly judged surely we must consider whether they have a deterrent effect? Rape and assault are not as final as death but they can cripple and blight a life. Surely there must be some balance, if one innocent dies but ten rapes/assaults are prevented is that worth it? What about a hundred, a thousand? It’s a tough question but it should be asked. Comparing guns to cars or doctors as agents of destruction is instructive. Cars and doctors are tools of great utility, guns are more like dangerous fire extinguishers. Cars doctors and guns are all regulated the question is are they regulated most effectively. Cars and doctors kill innocent people but we can not do completely without cars and doctors or we would loose more than we gain. However if we restricted car use to essential travel we would undoubtedly save a vast number of lives and injuries. Likewise if we were more rigorous in weeding out careless, drunk and incompetent doctors (the AMA, that medieval guild prevents that) we could probably save several times the number lost to homicide. It’s complicated and I don’t pretend to know the answers but I would like to see some of these questions resolved before I support so drastic a change in the laws as banning guns.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: AlanC (1808 days ago)
There are 25,000 deaths due to accidental falls. Oh. So it's OK for 11,000 people to be killed by guns.
ReplyVote up (204)down (243)
Original comment
There are 25,000 deaths due to accidental falls. Oh. So it's OK for 11,000 people to be killed by guns.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1808 days ago)
That's right. So what is the allowable number in your opinion? Is one person too many to maintain our freedoms?
ReplyVote up (188)down (182)
Original comment
That's right. So what is the allowable number in your opinion? Is one person too many to maintain our freedoms?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: missymiss (1808 days ago)
Not sure a young man machine gunning some school kids is maintaining freedoms?
ReplyVote up (197)down (195)
Original comment
Not sure a young man machine gunning some school kids is maintaining freedoms?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1808 days ago)
It is maintaining our freedom by killing 20 innocent school kids and nobody is saying it is. Now for the interesting part and this is for everyone who thinks gun control is the answer. These school kids were killed in a GUN FREE ZONE. It was illegal for him to bring that gun on school property. Did you know that? The crime still occurred even though it was illegal. So obviously making it illegal did not prevent it from happening did it.
ReplyVote up (214)down (203)
Original comment
It is maintaining our freedom by killing 20 innocent school kids and nobody is saying it is. Now for the interesting part and this is for everyone who thinks gun control is the answer. These school kids were killed in a GUN FREE ZONE. It was illegal for him to bring that gun on school property. Did you know that? The crime still occurred even though it was illegal. So obviously making it illegal did not prevent it from happening did it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Suspicious (1808 days ago)
Funny that the first person to die was his mom. She had guns and was trained in their use. Didn't do her much good. In fact, you could argue that it was exactly her gun ownership that led to this massacre.
ReplyVote up (213)down (190)
Original comment
Funny that the first person to die was his mom. She had guns and was trained in their use. Didn't do her much good. In fact, you could argue that it was exactly her gun ownership that led to this massacre.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Suspicious (1808 days ago)
So, the choice is either that the American People should be emasculated and tyrannized, or they must have the right to carry concealed assault weaponry, rocket launchers, grenades and so on for their own protection. There is no middle ground. Have I understood the argument correctly?
ReplyVote up (201)down (245)
Original comment
So, the choice is either that the American People should be emasculated and tyrannized, or they must have the right to carry concealed assault weaponry, rocket launchers, grenades and so on for their own protection. There is no middle ground. Have I understood the argument correctly?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Guns suck (1804 days ago)
A person that can't spell Colombia can't know much about guns - Thomas Jefferson.
ReplyVote up (196)down (243)
Original comment
A person that can't spell Colombia can't know much about guns - Thomas Jefferson.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Simples (1807 days ago)
This debate has never been about saving lives! How come the medical profession is responsible for the largest number of deaths? How come the Police kill more people than normal citizens? If the government truly cared for the people, they would expend their financial resources equally upon the sources of these needless deaths. In the UK, they started off the Cancer research Fund in the early 1970's - they are currently receiving donations in excess of £350 Million a year. Would you bother find a cure for cancer - if you knew that nobody would pay you a dime next year? Meanwhile there are 100's of natural cures for cancer and millions are saved through these channels. But the governments would have us believe that we should continue with pharmaceuticals and the medical profession who kill us in the half a million range per annum! It took America a decade in Iraq and they had to run with their tails between their legs - the reason why? simple - Saddam issued two rifles per family. And in Afghanistan, even children have guns and know how to assemble them. Two World super powers had to give up after decades of fighting. Disarm the US public from guns and let them be enslaved by their own or even another government!
ReplyVote up (187)down (235)
Original comment
This debate has never been about saving lives! How come the medical profession is responsible for the largest number of deaths? How come the Police kill more people than normal citizens? If the government truly cared for the people, they would expend their financial resources equally upon the sources of these needless deaths. In the UK, they started off the Cancer research Fund in the early 1970's - they are currently receiving donations in excess of £350 Million a year. Would you bother find a cure for cancer - if you knew that nobody would pay you a dime next year? Meanwhile there are 100's of natural cures for cancer and millions are saved through these channels. But the governments would have us believe that we should continue with pharmaceuticals and the medical profession who kill us in the half a million range per annum! It took America a decade in Iraq and they had to run with their tails between their legs - the reason why? simple - Saddam issued two rifles per family. And in Afghanistan, even children have guns and know how to assemble them. Two World super powers had to give up after decades of fighting. Disarm the US public from guns and let them be enslaved by their own or even another government!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1807 days ago)
Did you forget to wear your tinfoil hat? The answer to your cancer question is YES. People would find a cure for cancer if they could. If they found that cure today, it would still take years before it could be prescribed by doctors. The company that finds that cure will have a patent on it and can demand exclusive rights to sell their formula. Regarding your Iraq comments, you should read up on that before speaking about something you obviously know nothing about. Not sure which country you're in but understand that this was a multi-national force so the USA was not the only country over there so I'm not sure why you're saying the US ran with their tails between their legs. In fact, I feel the opposite -- the missions were accomplished. They do not have any weapons of mass destruction, Saddam is no longer in power, and they are not protecting Osama Bin Laden. We stayed to help rebuild the infrastructure that was destroyed during the war. Some of the Iraqi people did not want us there, the families of the troops wanted their sons and daughters back, so Obama withdrew the troops. What makes you think we left with tails between our legs and which country are you from?
ReplyVote up (173)down (199)
Original comment
Did you forget to wear your tinfoil hat? The answer to your cancer question is YES. People would find a cure for cancer if they could. If they found that cure today, it would still take years before it could be prescribed by doctors. The company that finds that cure will have a patent on it and can demand exclusive rights to sell their formula. Regarding your Iraq comments, you should read up on that before speaking about something you obviously know nothing about. Not sure which country you're in but understand that this was a multi-national force so the USA was not the only country over there so I'm not sure why you're saying the US ran with their tails between their legs. In fact, I feel the opposite -- the missions were accomplished. They do not have any weapons of mass destruction, Saddam is no longer in power, and they are not protecting Osama Bin Laden. We stayed to help rebuild the infrastructure that was destroyed during the war. Some of the Iraqi people did not want us there, the families of the troops wanted their sons and daughters back, so Obama withdrew the troops. What makes you think we left with tails between our legs and which country are you from?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Suspicious (1808 days ago)
Clearly the simple stats presented here do not support the argument for gun control. But I wonder how naive the stats really are. On so many scales the US is way out on a limb - and not always in a good way, either.
ReplyVote up (197)down (250)
Original comment
Clearly the simple stats presented here do not support the argument for gun control. But I wonder how naive the stats really are. On so many scales the US is way out on a limb - and not always in a good way, either.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Bang Bang the Mighty Fall (1808 days ago)
Why do the gun lobby always skip over any discussion of the intended meaning of the term "A WELL REGULATED Militia"? Surely to regulate something is to control it, in such away as to be beneficial. And "the right of the people to bear arms" is a collective statement that does back up the maintenance of the afore mentioned militia, but has been mis-read as hey...guns for every individual? The comparison between interpretations can be put like this.... Strict Constitutionalist = creationism Progressive Constitutionalist = Rational thinking
ReplyVote up (181)down (264)
Original comment
Why do the gun lobby always skip over any discussion of the intended meaning of the term "A WELL REGULATED Militia"? Surely to regulate something is to control it, in such away as to be beneficial. And "the right of the people to bear arms" is a collective statement that does back up the maintenance of the afore mentioned militia, but has been mis-read as hey...guns for every individual? The comparison between interpretations can be put like this.... Strict Constitutionalist = creationism Progressive Constitutionalist = Rational thinking
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
London1 London1 (1807 days ago)
She is such a moron, I don't even know where to begin. Singling out Mexico and Columbia, two countries engaged largely in the manufacture of narcotics to supply the bloated American market. Yeah, great choice, Dipshit! The accidental thing, staggering, that 250 million Americans are just walking around minding their own business on a daily basis and 25,000 trip over resulting in death a year, yet, you're just under half as likely to get shot and killed by some piece of shit!?! And she doesn't think that's a lot. Be nice if one of these loonies targeted her and cengland0!
ReplyVote up (216)down (376)
Original comment
She is such a moron, I don't even know where to begin. Singling out Mexico and Columbia, two countries engaged largely in the manufacture of narcotics to supply the bloated American market. Yeah, great choice, Dipshit! The accidental thing, staggering, that 250 million Americans are just walking around minding their own business on a daily basis and 25,000 trip over resulting in death a year, yet, you're just under half as likely to get shot and killed by some piece of shit!?! And she doesn't think that's a lot. Be nice if one of these loonies targeted her and cengland0!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1807 days ago)
Gee thanks. At least if you try to break into my house or attack me, you will find out the real reason we own guns. You probably wouldn't survive the encounter but you'll be added as another statistic. Florida has a "Stand your ground" clause so I don't even have to attempt to run away from you. Good luck.
ReplyVote up (196)down (197)
Original comment
Gee thanks. At least if you try to break into my house or attack me, you will find out the real reason we own guns. You probably wouldn't survive the encounter but you'll be added as another statistic. Florida has a "Stand your ground" clause so I don't even have to attempt to run away from you. Good luck.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
London1 London1 (1805 days ago)
Errrrrrr, I don't break into houses. Besides, I have no desire to visit your cancerous country in the first place.
ReplyVote up (190)down (201)
Original comment
Errrrrrr, I don't break into houses. Besides, I have no desire to visit your cancerous country in the first place.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1805 days ago)
Great, then no problem. Don't know why you had to inject your comments if you don't plan on visiting us here so worry about your own country's problems and leave us alone. You're also a minority in this world because so many people want to migrate to the US that we had to put tighter controls on our immigration policies. You're just one less person we have to worry about trying to come here.
ReplyVote up (179)down (193)
Original comment
Great, then no problem. Don't know why you had to inject your comments if you don't plan on visiting us here so worry about your own country's problems and leave us alone. You're also a minority in this world because so many people want to migrate to the US that we had to put tighter controls on our immigration policies. You're just one less person we have to worry about trying to come here.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Suspicious (1808 days ago)
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Coming right after Sandy Hook, that is a remarkably inept choice of quotation.
ReplyVote up (199)down (381)
Original comment
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Coming right after Sandy Hook, that is a remarkably inept choice of quotation.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Jevans842 (1807 days ago)
FYI, I made a short comment on the youtube page for this video. "You have literally no idea about cause and effect.. so much of what you bring up is completely spurious in the context of the whole ordeal." I have consequently been banned from further posts.. I can imagine this explains why all of the other posts appear to support the rubbish she reels out.
ReplyVote up (486)down (880)
Original comment
FYI, I made a short comment on the youtube page for this video. "You have literally no idea about cause and effect.. so much of what you bring up is completely spurious in the context of the whole ordeal." I have consequently been banned from further posts.. I can imagine this explains why all of the other posts appear to support the rubbish she reels out.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123 (1808 days ago)
Just let the yanks have their guns... and allow them to shoot and kill themselves... and more the merrier... the less Americans on this planet the better....
ReplyVote up (163)down (626)
Original comment
Just let the yanks have their guns... and allow them to shoot and kill themselves... and more the merrier... the less Americans on this planet the better....
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: happyholidays (1808 days ago)
What a totally inept woman she is and the shocking thing is she represents a considerable section of citizens in the United States. 11,000 deaths due to a gun related violence actually equates to 68% of total of homicides in the US. That is an astonishing figure alone. She also talks about more people dying of cigarettes, quite frankly to compare a violent act with a act such as smoking shows how scraping the barrel this woman actually is. That sort of inept analysis of the subject further goes to shows some people cannot begin to have a grasp of even the basics of morality and social responsibility. America needs to act and NOW! put in place stricter gun laws and even go so far as even rewriting the second amendment itself. Allowing firearms to be put into the hands of people is a flawed policy. No person outside of Law enforcement and the Military should own a gun full stop. No matter how much training you have behind you no member of the public should be able to carry a weapon on their person. Until the United States actually stops listening to the NRA and other pro gun lobby's the US will continue to endure unimaginable acts of violence. I am not American but British, we have the most strict gun laws in the whole world, and because of it we do not get the level of gun crime nor the deaths that precede gun ownership. Dunblane massacre shocked the UK government to impose such legislation and for many UK nationals even seeing a gun is a rare event. Only have seen one gun and that was in the hands of a firearms police officer. Does that mean British nationals feel less safe without a means of defending our houses and ourselves. No it makes us feel more safe knowing that there are not the sheer quantity of guns in circulation. American you have a choice, continue down this road and experience more death and violence or actually demonstrate the values of a core society. Your choice and its a really easy one to make.
ReplyVote up (153)down (642)
Original comment
What a totally inept woman she is and the shocking thing is she represents a considerable section of citizens in the United States. 11,000 deaths due to a gun related violence actually equates to 68% of total of homicides in the US. That is an astonishing figure alone. She also talks about more people dying of cigarettes, quite frankly to compare a violent act with a act such as smoking shows how scraping the barrel this woman actually is. That sort of inept analysis of the subject further goes to shows some people cannot begin to have a grasp of even the basics of morality and social responsibility. America needs to act and NOW! put in place stricter gun laws and even go so far as even rewriting the second amendment itself. Allowing firearms to be put into the hands of people is a flawed policy. No person outside of Law enforcement and the Military should own a gun full stop. No matter how much training you have behind you no member of the public should be able to carry a weapon on their person. Until the United States actually stops listening to the NRA and other pro gun lobby's the US will continue to endure unimaginable acts of violence. I am not American but British, we have the most strict gun laws in the whole world, and because of it we do not get the level of gun crime nor the deaths that precede gun ownership. Dunblane massacre shocked the UK government to impose such legislation and for many UK nationals even seeing a gun is a rare event. Only have seen one gun and that was in the hands of a firearms police officer. Does that mean British nationals feel less safe without a means of defending our houses and ourselves. No it makes us feel more safe knowing that there are not the sheer quantity of guns in circulation. American you have a choice, continue down this road and experience more death and violence or actually demonstrate the values of a core society. Your choice and its a really easy one to make.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1808 days ago)
If you could guarantee that every single person in the US would be disarmed and that the government would never try to take our freedoms away, then I would willingly give up my guns. Unfortunately you cannot disarm 100% of the people. Guns will still make it into the hands of the criminals so I need my gun as a law-abiding citizen to protect myself from those criminals. You seem to think that everyone that owns a gun goes out and murders people but that is far from the truth. Remember she said that 90 out of 100 people own guns but we do not have a 90% murder rate now do we? Regarding the other death statistics, she was illustrating that there are other more deadly things out there are remain legal too. The tobacco is a great example. There are more deaths due to tobacco than guns but you would rather us give up the guns? Why not make tobacco illegal and let us keep the guns? You're the one not making sense. One more comment. She stated there are drug overdose and other drug related deaths. Those drugs are illegal so how is that possible? See, criminals still find ways around the law so I have to ask you this very simple question: Do you really want just the criminals to have guns while everyone else that is law abiding to be completely defenseless?
ReplyVote up (158)down (138)
Original comment
If you could guarantee that every single person in the US would be disarmed and that the government would never try to take our freedoms away, then I would willingly give up my guns. Unfortunately you cannot disarm 100% of the people. Guns will still make it into the hands of the criminals so I need my gun as a law-abiding citizen to protect myself from those criminals. You seem to think that everyone that owns a gun goes out and murders people but that is far from the truth. Remember she said that 90 out of 100 people own guns but we do not have a 90% murder rate now do we? Regarding the other death statistics, she was illustrating that there are other more deadly things out there are remain legal too. The tobacco is a great example. There are more deaths due to tobacco than guns but you would rather us give up the guns? Why not make tobacco illegal and let us keep the guns? You're the one not making sense. One more comment. She stated there are drug overdose and other drug related deaths. Those drugs are illegal so how is that possible? See, criminals still find ways around the law so I have to ask you this very simple question: Do you really want just the criminals to have guns while everyone else that is law abiding to be completely defenseless?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: steve-o (1808 days ago)
Not sure about the tobacco analogy. If there were people walking around, grabbing people, and forcing them to smoke until they got cancer, maybe that is a parallel to being shot. But not as it is today. Smoking is an informed CHOICE, due to education and material available. People fo a lot of risky things of their own choosing (bungy jumps, sky diving, polo(!) amongst many). Until people are press ganged to jump off cliffs, or smoke, this argument is not valid. The facts show that countries without guns (or with tight controls) have a tiny fraction of deaths via guns compared to the US. I still don't understand how automatic weapons specifically designed to kill humans are deemed an acceptable part of your house furniture. I do get your point about corrupt government, but if you look historically, the most powerful way to preserve democracy is to actively vote and educate yourself politically. A gun reduces an argument to 2 outcomes; death or life. Is this really the way to go?
ReplyVote up (140)down (149)
Original comment
Not sure about the tobacco analogy. If there were people walking around, grabbing people, and forcing them to smoke until they got cancer, maybe that is a parallel to being shot. But not as it is today. Smoking is an informed CHOICE, due to education and material available. People fo a lot of risky things of their own choosing (bungy jumps, sky diving, polo(!) amongst many). Until people are press ganged to jump off cliffs, or smoke, this argument is not valid. The facts show that countries without guns (or with tight controls) have a tiny fraction of deaths via guns compared to the US. I still don't understand how automatic weapons specifically designed to kill humans are deemed an acceptable part of your house furniture. I do get your point about corrupt government, but if you look historically, the most powerful way to preserve democracy is to actively vote and educate yourself politically. A gun reduces an argument to 2 outcomes; death or life. Is this really the way to go?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1808 days ago)
Tobacco is not a choice. You get cancer from second hand smoke. Additionally, once you are addicted, is it still a choice? I was subjected to tobacco as a child because my parents smoked and I was trapped in the same car as them. They smoked at the dinner table too. Regarding automatic weapons, where are you getting that from? You cannot just walk into your local supermarket and buy a fully automatic weapon. You can get them from a class 3 dealer, pay a higher transfer tax, go through extensive background checks and then you will have the ability to pay $15,000 for an M16. When she stated that 90 out of 100 people own a gun, that's usually a handgun or a rifle. Very few of us actually own fully automatic weapons. Regarding actively voting and educating myself politically, that's fine with us in the US but what about the people of Cuba? Do they get to vote? What about before America helped out the citizens of Iraq? Did Saddam let people vote for his replacement every 4 years?
ReplyVote up (197)down (155)
Original comment
Tobacco is not a choice. You get cancer from second hand smoke. Additionally, once you are addicted, is it still a choice? I was subjected to tobacco as a child because my parents smoked and I was trapped in the same car as them. They smoked at the dinner table too. Regarding automatic weapons, where are you getting that from? You cannot just walk into your local supermarket and buy a fully automatic weapon. You can get them from a class 3 dealer, pay a higher transfer tax, go through extensive background checks and then you will have the ability to pay $15,000 for an M16. When she stated that 90 out of 100 people own a gun, that's usually a handgun or a rifle. Very few of us actually own fully automatic weapons. Regarding actively voting and educating myself politically, that's fine with us in the US but what about the people of Cuba? Do they get to vote? What about before America helped out the citizens of Iraq? Did Saddam let people vote for his replacement every 4 years?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: steve-o (1805 days ago)
Regarding Saddam, no - politically impossible for ordinary people. But would arming them suddenly create a revolution? Some of the biggest changes in history have been effected without guns (Ghandi, Mandela etc). I am not a gun fan, but I do think Michael Moore came to an interesting conclusion when investigating Colombine where he said although Canada had the same number of guns as America, the stats were totally different, and the only conclusion he could draw was the amazing force of the US Media, which created a fear culture. I guess if you are in constant expectation of attack you are likely to react completely differently. I don't pretend to know the answer, but surely just escalating what you currently do to a greater level isn't the only option to consider? BTW it is reassuring to know the controls on automatic weapons, but then why would ANYONE bar a soldier need them regardless of security checks and money involved?
ReplyVote up (166)down (161)
Original comment
Regarding Saddam, no - politically impossible for ordinary people. But would arming them suddenly create a revolution? Some of the biggest changes in history have been effected without guns (Ghandi, Mandela etc). I am not a gun fan, but I do think Michael Moore came to an interesting conclusion when investigating Colombine where he said although Canada had the same number of guns as America, the stats were totally different, and the only conclusion he could draw was the amazing force of the US Media, which created a fear culture. I guess if you are in constant expectation of attack you are likely to react completely differently. I don't pretend to know the answer, but surely just escalating what you currently do to a greater level isn't the only option to consider? BTW it is reassuring to know the controls on automatic weapons, but then why would ANYONE bar a soldier need them regardless of security checks and money involved?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1805 days ago)
You know, it doesn't really matter about the automatic weapons. When you look at all the mass shootings, most of them are done by simple hand guns -- not automatic rifles. So why is there a sudden push to ban automatic rifles? How many documented cases where people have gone on a rampage with an automatic assault weapon are there? Not that many. In fact, the mass shootings only account for 0.1% of the homicides in the US. Additionally, tell the people trying to defend themselves during the LA Riots that they shouldn't have had automatic weapons.
ReplyVote up (194)down (153)
Original comment
You know, it doesn't really matter about the automatic weapons. When you look at all the mass shootings, most of them are done by simple hand guns -- not automatic rifles. So why is there a sudden push to ban automatic rifles? How many documented cases where people have gone on a rampage with an automatic assault weapon are there? Not that many. In fact, the mass shootings only account for 0.1% of the homicides in the US. Additionally, tell the people trying to defend themselves during the LA Riots that they shouldn't have had automatic weapons.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: happyholidays (1808 days ago)
If you imposed a strict regime in the first instance, reviewed the second ammendment you would not have these sorts of problems.The inability of a "great" nation to not see an enlightened approach has brought the United States to the point that there seems to be a mass homicide due to firearms every week. To the point that children are seemingly taken to gun ranges to be taught how to fire a gun even before they can legally drive,vote consume alcohol at a pub or club. There is something wrong with the USA on that last point alone. " I need my gun as a law-abiding citizen to protect myself from those criminals" Lets get one thing crystal clear,no one needs a gun. You need a roof over your head access to medical services, I don't see a right to bear arms as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its not carrying a gun is not necessary. You can protect your home without them. "she was illustrating that there are other more deadly things out there are remain legal too. The tobacco is a great example. There are more deaths due to tobacco than guns but you would rather us give up the guns? Why not make tobacco illegal and let us keep the guns?" To actually suggest that Tobacco should be illegal is laughable. To draw comparisons such as accidents in a home or medical errors only serve to actually cloud the issue. To say medical negligence is comparable to homicide by firearm is so far wide of the mark it might as well be in Canada. " Why not make tobacco illegal and let us keep the guns?" So you advocate making a minor drug illegal over an instrument that can kill a significant amount of people with one magazine. Nice to see there is a reasoned and balance to the argument. "Do you really want just the criminals to have guns while everyone else that is law abiding to be completely defenseless?" Again I dont know how clear people have to make this argument, you dont need guns to defend yourselves in fact the gun you own is more likely to be used against you by an assailant. Your arguments are at best lacking in basic reasoning at worst are a complete fallacy. Oh and one more thing, Nancy Lanza was a keen gun enthusiast regularly taking her son Adam to gun ranges. She kept guns to "protect her home and herself" the same guns that her son used to kill those 20 children and those school teachers who tried to protect them. So much for only using guns to defend yourself and property. If gun laws were tougher and at a legislative level in capital hill. Gun crime would have significantly decreased. Its no coincidence as Steve alluded to that states like The United Kingdom have fewer deaths due to gun related crime.
ReplyVote up (164)down (180)
Original comment
If you imposed a strict regime in the first instance, reviewed the second ammendment you would not have these sorts of problems.The inability of a "great" nation to not see an enlightened approach has brought the United States to the point that there seems to be a mass homicide due to firearms every week. To the point that children are seemingly taken to gun ranges to be taught how to fire a gun even before they can legally drive,vote consume alcohol at a pub or club. There is something wrong with the USA on that last point alone. " I need my gun as a law-abiding citizen to protect myself from those criminals" Lets get one thing crystal clear,no one needs a gun. You need a roof over your head access to medical services, I don't see a right to bear arms as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its not carrying a gun is not necessary. You can protect your home without them. "she was illustrating that there are other more deadly things out there are remain legal too. The tobacco is a great example. There are more deaths due to tobacco than guns but you would rather us give up the guns? Why not make tobacco illegal and let us keep the guns?" To actually suggest that Tobacco should be illegal is laughable. To draw comparisons such as accidents in a home or medical errors only serve to actually cloud the issue. To say medical negligence is comparable to homicide by firearm is so far wide of the mark it might as well be in Canada. " Why not make tobacco illegal and let us keep the guns?" So you advocate making a minor drug illegal over an instrument that can kill a significant amount of people with one magazine. Nice to see there is a reasoned and balance to the argument. "Do you really want just the criminals to have guns while everyone else that is law abiding to be completely defenseless?" Again I dont know how clear people have to make this argument, you dont need guns to defend yourselves in fact the gun you own is more likely to be used against you by an assailant. Your arguments are at best lacking in basic reasoning at worst are a complete fallacy. Oh and one more thing, Nancy Lanza was a keen gun enthusiast regularly taking her son Adam to gun ranges. She kept guns to "protect her home and herself" the same guns that her son used to kill those 20 children and those school teachers who tried to protect them. So much for only using guns to defend yourself and property. If gun laws were tougher and at a legislative level in capital hill. Gun crime would have significantly decreased. Its no coincidence as Steve alluded to that states like The United Kingdom have fewer deaths due to gun related crime.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1808 days ago)
Carrying a gun is necessary. The reason we teach our children how to use them is for safety and so they are educated as well or better as the criminals breaking into their houses. As for me, I don't trust the police to be here when I call them when I have an emergency. They will get here after the event is over and then spend the rest of the night identifying my body and then trying to figure out who it was that did it. Regarding the person that killed 20 children, let me ask you this. If the guy stabbed them to death would you still say guns are the problem? In that case, should we make all knives illegal? If he ran his car into the playground and killed them that way, should we make cars illegal? So about my disarming comment, you obviously cannot guarantee that the criminals will give up their guns but you're still advocating that us law-abiding citizens do. That is your position, right?
ReplyVote up (184)down (183)
Original comment
Carrying a gun is necessary. The reason we teach our children how to use them is for safety and so they are educated as well or better as the criminals breaking into their houses. As for me, I don't trust the police to be here when I call them when I have an emergency. They will get here after the event is over and then spend the rest of the night identifying my body and then trying to figure out who it was that did it. Regarding the person that killed 20 children, let me ask you this. If the guy stabbed them to death would you still say guns are the problem? In that case, should we make all knives illegal? If he ran his car into the playground and killed them that way, should we make cars illegal? So about my disarming comment, you obviously cannot guarantee that the criminals will give up their guns but you're still advocating that us law-abiding citizens do. That is your position, right?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: happyholidays (1808 days ago)
Carrying a gun is not necessary at all nor is it a universal human right to do so. To say it is is quite frankly ludicrous. So you would rather children to learn how to shoot before actually having the mental development to make rational and reasoned judgments. Before they can vote before they are even old enough to drink in a bar. My goodness that is such a antiquated notion. Millions of Americans have faith in the police service and your stance actually only serves to perpetuate the situation rather than solve it. You work with your police authority not against it. Again Guns are by design made to kill, cars and knives are not they serve a purpose not included in it to kill. You dont get in a car and think oh this is a instrument to kill someone. Its there to get you from A to B. I am sure Henry T Ford at the conception of the Model T Ford did not think the whole point of an automobile was to kill and mame people. Not do i think Victorinox research and development team thought of the bat that they were designing a instrument to kill, than cut up an apple. Who is also not to say the law abiding citizen the average joe bloggs on any given American street from Boston to San Diego is mentally capable of handling a firearm. Who can use sound and reasoned judgement in using the firearm they posses. I have seen in the United Kingdom people get violently assaulted on a night out just for looking at them the wrong way. Put a gun into that mix and you have a recipe for disaster. Oh and as for law- abiding citizens just because they have not committed a felony under US law does not mean they are of sound mind and judgement. Nice having a debate about this important issue.
ReplyVote up (184)down (155)
Original comment
Carrying a gun is not necessary at all nor is it a universal human right to do so. To say it is is quite frankly ludicrous. So you would rather children to learn how to shoot before actually having the mental development to make rational and reasoned judgments. Before they can vote before they are even old enough to drink in a bar. My goodness that is such a antiquated notion. Millions of Americans have faith in the police service and your stance actually only serves to perpetuate the situation rather than solve it. You work with your police authority not against it. Again Guns are by design made to kill, cars and knives are not they serve a purpose not included in it to kill. You dont get in a car and think oh this is a instrument to kill someone. Its there to get you from A to B. I am sure Henry T Ford at the conception of the Model T Ford did not think the whole point of an automobile was to kill and mame people. Not do i think Victorinox research and development team thought of the bat that they were designing a instrument to kill, than cut up an apple. Who is also not to say the law abiding citizen the average joe bloggs on any given American street from Boston to San Diego is mentally capable of handling a firearm. Who can use sound and reasoned judgement in using the firearm they posses. I have seen in the United Kingdom people get violently assaulted on a night out just for looking at them the wrong way. Put a gun into that mix and you have a recipe for disaster. Oh and as for law- abiding citizens just because they have not committed a felony under US law does not mean they are of sound mind and judgement. Nice having a debate about this important issue.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Shameonyou (1806 days ago)
Carrying a gun is necessary??? There is no hope for you!
ReplyVote up (168)down (160)
Original comment
Carrying a gun is necessary??? There is no hope for you!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1806 days ago)
Yes, it's necessary. The word "necessary" is even in the text of our 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So, if we want a free state, it is necessary to have a well regulated militia and a militia is armed.
ReplyVote up (180)down (166)
Original comment
Yes, it's necessary. The word "necessary" is even in the text of our 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So, if we want a free state, it is necessary to have a well regulated militia and a militia is armed.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1808 days ago)
The military industrial complex is making too much money off American gun culture nuts that preach that "guns dont kill people." Problem is that it is too easy for mentally unstable people to hold of weapons, but with 300 million guns in the US thats going to be a problem for quite some time, even if by some small miracle they get a ban passed.
ReplyVote up (165)down (1487)
Original comment
The military industrial complex is making too much money off American gun culture nuts that preach that "guns dont kill people." Problem is that it is too easy for mentally unstable people to hold of weapons, but with 300 million guns in the US thats going to be a problem for quite some time, even if by some small miracle they get a ban passed.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Alt-right trolling strategy: Never play defence
Alt-right trolling strategy: Never play defence
How to always win an argument
How to always win an argument
Is the very idea of university under threat?
Is the very idea of university under threat?
Atheist vs Preacher
Atheist vs Preacher
Is the moon a planet?
Is the moon a planet?