Guns, Guns Guns

Here is example of young criminal learning the ultimate lesson. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/29/suspect-learns-there-are-painful-consequences-to-robbing-and-assaulting-a-woman-right-in-front-of-her-texas-husband/ Unfortunately, the criminal died and the case is being referred to a grand jury. That is the proper procedure in this case. The firearm is a tool when employed correctly levels the playing field. Women can use in protection of their being or their families. Elderly may use it to protect themselves and their loved ones.

This is what happens when you disarm the public. Yes...you stop many murder suicides over love quarrels, love spats, and etc...etc...

However, the public are then sheep to be slaughtered by people with no respect for the law. The criminals and the terrorists go where they know they will not have to deal with the public being armed.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11/03/isis-is-coming-religious-leader-shot-following-islamic-state-threats-in-australia/

A religious war is coming correction it's already here just ask our neighbors to the North and England!

Yes, ever since guns were banned or heavily restricted here in Germany, criminals have been killing people with firearms literally hundreds of times every year! It's gun murder fun time around here!

Criminals will be criminals. You cannot stop a person from committing a crime. What you can do however is make it harder to commit serious crimes, and that's basically the effect we're seeing in countries that restrict public gun ownership. The occasional murder does not change the simple statistical fact that the US has a much, much higher gun crime rate than any other first world country.

The only ay you're going to reduce the numbers of guns in the US is by forcefully taking them from the citizens and that would mean a very nasty civil war. We will not give up our guns willingly (especially in the countryside. Urbanites seem much more willing to curb their own freedoms than country folk) at all and it would require force to get them out of our hands. The adage: 'you can take my gun from my cold dead fingers' comes to mind. And I don't think a lot of the military would go along with disarming the citizens.

I'm not saying that it's possible for the US to institute immediate gun bans. It's a cultural thing for you guys without which you wouldn't be quite the same, but at the same time I have to point out that the justifications of the sort smr has been using in these most recent posts isn't actually based in facts.

By all means, own guns. Carry them with pride. Use them however you wish. But do not for a single second believe that you are safer with a gun than without it. You would have a point if you were one of a very small group of people allowed to own guns, but given that almost anyone can own one, the risk of you getting shot isn't diminished at all.

It's a risk most of us are willing to live with and we believe that we -are- safer because it gives us an option that anyone can use to defend themselves. You might believe otherwise, but for us it's a safety feature we want.

One of the things people keep saying that you remove the guns and criminals won't have them rings as very false here because most criminals don't -get- their guns legally. They are smuggled in and bought by people who can't legally have guns So I don't see how removing them from the citizens would reduce gun crime when the criminals don't obey the laws and procure guns outside of the law anyways. Citizens have no guns, hard to defend themselves. Criminals have guns, easier and safer for them to commit crimes because the victims aren't armed as well.

I do prefer our system where we don't need guns to defend ourselves or be safe. That said I agree that the USA is most probably now stuck with an insolvable gun problem.

As a gun owner I do find alarming the mind set that having a gun provides a bullet proof safety shield. Just not so, and I believe that having a gun just gives the other side an excuse to shoot in their self defence.

Zakharra wrote:It's a risk most of us are willing to live with and we believe that we -are- safer because it gives us an option that anyone can use to defend themselves. You might believe otherwise, but for us it's a safety feature we want.

One of the things people keep saying that you remove the guns and criminals won't have them rings as very false here because most criminals don't -get- their guns legally. They are smuggled in and bought by people who can't legally have guns So I don't see how removing them from the citizens would reduce gun crime when the criminals don't obey the laws and procure guns outside of the law anyways. Citizens have no guns, hard to defend themselves. Criminals have guns, easier and safer for them to commit crimes because the victims aren't armed as well.

Its probably not unsolvable, except due to politics. It would just take 1 to 3 decades of work. Start with simplyfing the rules the country over, to a full level, with state or county rules not allowed to be looser. Stuff like the permanent banning of gun ownership if convicted of a gun crime, such as a domestic with weapon, or threatening with a gun. Harsher sentences for those who offend with a gun. better controls on who gets a license, and relicense requirements.Prevent kids under 7/8 from firing guns. cases where accidents are likely to happen. don't just concentrate on reducing crime, concentrate on reducing injuries as well.

In addition to this, start campaigns to reduce the desire for gun ownership, and to improve handling safety. Change the mindset from a gun being a piece of clothing or your phone, to be taken everywhere, to a tool that demands respect.

Now sit on this for 5 to 10 years. Everyone should now know the rules, and the enforcement should have become steady. Remove concealed carry, large magazines, and divide gun licenses so you need more background checks, and a higher standard to follow, for owning more than a set amount of guns (say 40 for personal use, excluding licensed collectors.), and sit back for another 2 decades.

2 generations of kids will grow up with less access to firearms, and improved respect. The guns that have been banned can be grandfathered in, with a clause preventing sale except to licensed gun collectors, and 3 decades, will slowly reduce the amount of guns available, as guns die from lack of care, and can only be replaced with smaller guns, or can no longer be used due to lack of ammo.

240 odd years of culture will take a while to change, but it could be done, if slowly, if you get some politicians with a backbone to bring america in line with the rest of the world.

Now enforce these l

Daryl wrote:I do prefer our system where we don't need guns to defend ourselves or be safe. That said I agree that the USA is most probably now stuck with an insolvable gun problem.

As a gun owner I do find alarming the mind set that having a gun provides a bullet proof safety shield. Just not so, and I believe that having a gun just gives the other side an excuse to shoot in their self defence.

Zakharra wrote:It's a risk most of us are willing to live with and we believe that we -are- safer because it gives us an option that anyone can use to defend themselves. You might believe otherwise, but for us it's a safety feature we want.

One of the things people keep saying that you remove the guns and criminals won't have them rings as very false here because most criminals don't -get- their guns legally. They are smuggled in and bought by people who can't legally have guns So I don't see how removing them from the citizens would reduce gun crime when the criminals don't obey the laws and procure guns outside of the law anyways. Citizens have no guns, hard to defend themselves. Criminals have guns, easier and safer for them to commit crimes because the victims aren't armed as well.

Hmm, assuming we wish to be disarmed by what true Communists call useful idiots. Mao Tse Tung once said "Power comes from the barrel of the gun," now do you want that power in the hands of a government or the people. In the USA we decided to put it into the hands of the people in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Poker

Poker I think you have pointed out the relevant cultural difference between the US and other developed countries. I (and most of our citizens) want the democratically elected government to have the power. We don't want mob rule or bands of rednecks believing that they know better than the majority, thus imposing their ideologies on us.

Good luck with your system, but it's not for us. We have a word for armed overthrow of a legally elected government, treason.

pokermind wrote:Hmm, assuming we wish to be disarmed by what true Communists call useful idiots. Mao Tse Tung once said "Power comes from the barrel of the gun," now do you want that power in the hands of a government or the people. In the USA we decided to put it into the hands of the people in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Poker