once you have time to think it turns into hate, you can hate on someone after the moment but if you didnt do it at the time then you have a lesson to learn, why, who, what, how, you can consider the rest of the situation that you had influence over. my name is berner, i'm also a potential bomber, I'm a chemist, a thinker and believer in life and death. Shit don't matter long as you get home.
Crime tends to go way up in areas where gun laws are strict cause the criminals know the good guys have no real good way of protecting them selves or the house they live in.
Your argument is as strong as someone disputing being arrested for bringing heroin into the United States; "hey it's legal in my country, who are you to dictate that it's illegal here and whether or not I can possess this substance?" Calling one state's set of laws tyrannical because of their proposed gun laws is a bit of a stretch. Fair point, but then the question is why is this person travelling into another state with guns in their car in the first place? I mean if one were to assume that it were for target practice, or to hunt game, it can be reasoned that they'd have an understanding of what guns to use in that state.
Lets not forget the most basic concept about gun control. Police cannot protect you. They can only come after the fact and collect evidence. Want to stop school shootings? Want to protect yourself? -yuri
Yep. Cops might even catch the killer, but it'll be small comfort to a dead guy right? The great lie is that police exist to protect you at all. That is not their job, it's not in their mandate. And statistically, police forces are a greater threat to the general population than any big scary "terrorist" group you care to name.
Nobody's happy about kids being killed. But that doesn't change the fact that gun control can not and will not prevent those types of shootings. In fact, there is some evidence gun control can even contribute to massacres like that. Most such massacres happen in places where people are not allowed to be armed. That's the result of idiocy such as "Gun Free Zones". The killer is guaranteed at least a 10 minute window of total power over defenseless victims until the police arrive and either kill or capture the killer or cause them to kill themselves.
I found an interesting bumper sticker a while back, and bought it. It said, If guns cause crime, matches cause arson.
We need to implement fork control to combat the obesity epidemic. Clearly, with less access to forks people will stop eating so much.
Yep they are just creating an atmosphere in which it is easier to commit violent acts and get away with it, gotta love em. They haven't thought it through and their response rather than okay let's protect people where they actually need it, is let's just make a huge criminal market for illegal guns by cutting the flow of legal ones. I do not know what else they expect, oh right, for crime to go down.
I am pleasantly surprised, I would have thought this forum would be a bastion of gun hating liberals. It's awesome to see that the 2nd amendment being defended.
The only argument anyone needs to make is that gun control is ineffective and will never work in this country. The statistics generally show that increases in gun ownership don't lead to significant increases or decreases in crime rates. Therefore this idea that arming all our citizens will lead to less crime is virtually just as unfounded as the idea that de arming our citizens will lead to less crime. Most statistics point to the fact that gun ownership rates don't have a major affect on crime and that is because crime is largely committed because of poverty and personal emotions like rage. Therefore, people who are law abiding citizens should be able to have guns, because it most likely will not affect others and will probably make that person safer in the long run or just about neutral. People aren't gonna stop committing crimes because guns are illegal so there's not enough of a reason to deny a person a gun if they feel threatened enough to need one. All other arguments are largely based on fallacy. The idea that if we regulate guns it's comparable to regulating sources of fire or driving is a silly argument because the utility of both items are drastically different. I would say as a whole things like cars and fires have a much greater net positive than guns in our society and are much more necessary which is why the two aren't easily comparable.
There is evidence that crime tends to drop when states implement CCW permit programs. So I wouldn't say there's no evidence pointing to gun ownership having a positive effect on crime. It also makes sense logically, that criminals are more hesitant to victimize people who may be armed, rather than under strict gun control laws where honest citizens are guaranteed to not have one.