The mentally ill will be over-defensive . It's a safety issue . I can be quite annoyed by people half-mindlessly telling me to be safe . I think it's the culture that informs the mentally ill which illusions they will adopt . Or is a baddass pretentious illusion a poisonous cause ? Let's not talk about my Henry Survival Rifle .
My family has plenty of guns and there's nothing wrong with us. My family has plenty of guns and there's nihing withuse-- My faimult hase plmny o gubs and hnotipmuonhg worg wi os.--mdjduryrwkdkjkkjjkkosoaoaoowiitiis-------muh-uh--
i made a homemade gun once ,out of copper plumbing pipe ,you pumped it up with a bicycle pump ,and it shot 6inch nails that i made with flights on the end like arrows or darts ,,it was so powerfull ,i shot it once and it went through a car door ,totally illeagal here in the UK i didnt feel safe owning it ,so i destroyed it
I did too ,Took a pipe , drilled a little hole about the length of a firecracker from one end , threaded the end, attached the pipe to a little wooden stock. We would stick a firecracker in with the fuse poking out of the hole, screw a cap on the end, stick an arrow in the front of the pipe and light the fuse. BANG-- arrow would stick in a tree!! Cop took it and gave me and my buddy a lecture. We were 10 years old.
my dad has got a 10 gauge shot gun hanging on his wall ,,he doesnt need a licence ,because he removed the firing pin
I took a local survey : How to take down a fancy flying army drone ? a goose gun , and better yet ram it with a little 10 dollar drone .
I scanned through this thread quickly. 1. The 2nd was written to defend the various levels of government, not overthrow it. It gives you the right to join a well regulated militia to support the standing army. Well regulated militias have historically only been used to support the government. 2. An assault weapon is different than an assault rifle. 3. Private citizens are not allowed to own the same weapons as the government. 4. Weapons are already regulated and the regulations need to be tightened.
You claim to understand, but aren't you turning your back on most if not all of the research done on the role of guns in homicide in the United States? Guns are killing people all the time, and not just in mass shootings but murders, other crimes, and accidents. If we've LEARNED why is it still happening?
I don't agree. This seems like a very myopic approach to stemming the amount of violence caused by guns. What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S. What happened when we tried a hands-off approach to death from coronavirus (CoViD-19)? Or if we took a similar attitude about cancer or Alzheimer's and figured that it's supernatural and not for human meddling? We must do something! If AIDS or Ebola were killing Americans, there would be no question. Oh wait...
Law abiding citizens? Debatable. But to your point, the local police are perfectly adequate for protecting the public in every other regard. We still have problems with drunk driving. What if it were unregulated? I agree that enforcement and compliance becomes an issue at some point. But that's an easy fix. One or two tweaks and better training for enforcement is implemented. Ok. Guns are part of the problem, which is currently under debate but I think we all know which way this is going. It's too bad you're not on board. But I think in reality those who stand against gun reform are horribly misguided. I disagree. The CDC is currently researching gun violence with voracity. When we finally accept the result as fact (something some will attempt to refute ) something will finally be done. Firearm Violence Prevention |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC ^ NOTE: Not making this up...
Comedians? A decidedly tactical submission... But I think that it's clear: Making light of the problems may lighten the mood for those who fear reforms, but reforms are coming! There's nothing anyone can do to change the sad facts: guns are killing droves and mass shootings are preventable. I think it's a little sad to see you stoop & try and make humorous something deadly and avoidable like murder, death, and shooting.
The figures aren't going to become any more acceptable. You mentioned Chicago. I think the rate of gun death there is totally out of control. What can you or I do? Stand idly by doing nothing? Stats of the States - Firearm Mortality further, I get the impression that you don't take this seriously. You seem to feel that these deaths are acceptable collateral damage. These deaths are homicide! Preventable* Gun violence IS violence.
QuickStats: Rates of Firearm-Related Deaths Among Persons Aged 15 Years or Older, by Selected Intent and Age Group Saved Request: Underlying Cause of Death, 1999-2019, D99F057
Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives (forbes.com) Another study estimates there are 1,029,615 DGUs per year “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere” excluding “military service, police work, or work as a security guard,” (within the range of the National Academies’ paper), yielding an estimate of 162,000 cases per year where someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.” My bold
Wrat1 Sorry but you seem to think wars are inevitable - you even seem - i’m sorry to say - to be looking forward to some new American Civil War, which i find rather distasteful. War to me is not the inevitable outcome and for me the one that you do most to prevent because war is not a good thing. There are known problems with the US political system that can be addressed and should be attempted but to not even try to bother and instead look forward to an armed conflict to sort it all out seems like madness. You mean in the US - well the festering sore of slavery should have been taclked a lot sooner than it was and if it had been there may not have been a civil war - even at the founding many realised that the situation was untenable and corrupting Again it might not have happened if people had listened to the grievances put forward my the colonists and many in the British parliament were on their side and aslo remember, the Continental Congress, petitioned King George III denying that independence was the Americans’ objective, and appealing to him to protect the colonies. And when war came many colonists fought on the British side. Also I add here that for enslaved people in the colonies, it was the British who represented liberty, not the white Americans with many slaves who could have fought for the British in the war. No, I'd say there were several sides to most arguments - I choose the one that makes the most sense to me in a rational and reasonable way, this comes about through debating the different arguments and seeing which stand up to scrutiny and which don’t and can often involve compromise and consensus. But you don’t seem to have a good argument for your position and no counter arguments to what has been presented in opposition, i mean look at your replies and often you are not even attempting to address them.