My compromise for gun control

Mac

I believe that about 85% of Americans have a car and there was some 90% seat belt usage in the US in 2016 and that is higher in some states. I can see why most Americans would use a seat belt as it has been shown to decrease the likelihood of injury and death.

But the majority of Americans [70%] don’t see any reason for owning a gun and in the UK 90% of police officers in London don’t feel the need to be armed with a gun.

Why is your fear of been attacked greater than theirs?

Ok so let’s say people take precautions in relation to perceived risk why is your perceived risk of been attacked so much greater than others that you feel the desperate need to carry a lethal weapon?

And why do you and others in the gun lobby seem so opposed to the introduction of safety measures that could decrease the likelihood of gun related injuries and deaths?

 

Mac

I’m not sure how a dash cam helps with road safety?

You have an interesting mind-set.

Think about it - in a discussion about road safety I bring up seat belts, airbags and automatic braking systems all things meant to prevent or limit the likelihood of injury or death.

Your contribution is the dash cam, which has nothing to do with preventing injury but which you add because you fear been maliciously accused of doing something wrong.

Do you see the difference?

To me it is about preventing bodily harm to you it is about been able to vanquishing your enemies.

*

Those wanting prudent gun control want to limit the harm of ease of access to guns in the US but it seems to me that many in the gun lobby want that ease of access so they can have the guns to vanquishing their enemies (be they criminals or the government).

 

Mac

I’d be still interested in you answer to the question I posed earlier

Honestly if someone said to you that they needed a gun so they can be prepared to shot their political enemies if they so desired, do you think such a person should be able to have as many guns as they want?

I mean you wanted close friends and/or relatives to report ‘tendencies’ to get guns away from those that shouldn’t have them, so let’s say this was your friend or relative would you say anything?

I mean what if the comments were of a far-right or racist nature would you act then?

I mean at what point should people act, you seem to say earlier in the thread that many mass shooting could have been prevented if people had reported the ant-social tendencies of the gun owner, things like extremist political viewpoints, threatening political opponents with death or racism I think would all be counted as anti-social viewpoints, so when should people speak up, when would you report such things?

 

I'm the type of guy that likes contingency plans for as many aspects of life as possible. Most people don't carry a tourniquet. I do. Most people don't carry a knife. I do and have used it whenever I need to cut or open things. Most people in the US aren't trained on CPR. I am. Most people don't have a savings account. I do and it helped me recently when my car was giving me trouble. Me carrying a firearm is simply an extension of my personality. I like to be prepared. Just because most people aren't doing something doesn't automatically mean that it isn't needed or a good idea.

But, like said earlier, the very nature of my past, present, and future occupations inherently puts me at a greater risk than most people. So if anyone has the excuse to fear being attacked, it would be. But again, I don't carry out of fear.

As to your police force, your country is rather unique even among western nations. Most western nations have the majority of their police force armed. So I'm not sure why you brought that up.

 

It would depend on the context surrounding the statement and what specific words he said. For example, a general "the second amendment was created to protect the citizens against a tyrannical government" statement wouldn't raise too many, if any flags with me, especially taking into account our country's history and culture. However, if he said "it's time that we overthrow the government" in our current system, I would be concerned. I can't give too many specifics unless I have a real life example to draw from.

Again, context, and verbiage is key. I need a specific scenario to give a specific answer.

Generally speaking, if that person has motive, means, and opportunity, then I would report him and let professional determine whether or not he is a threat.

 

pew pew Open Carry.. pew pew pew..

 

On July 17, 2014, Eric Garner was killed for selling loose cigarettes

After the Staten Island grand jury did not indict Pantaleo on December 3, citizens in New York City a gathered in protest
Dec 20, 2014 - Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu were shot at point-blank range in their ... Two police officers sitting in their patrol car in Brooklyn were shot at ... in the shadow of a tall housing project when the gunman, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, ... officers and was angered about the Eric Garner and Michael Brown cases.

Aug 19, 2019 - The decision to fire Daniel Pantaleo came five years after Eric Garner's death during his arrest.

====

On July 7, 2016, Micah Xavier Johnson ambushed and fired upon a group of police officers in Dallas, Texas, killing five officers and injuring nine others. Two civilians were also wounded. Johnson was an Army Reserve Afghan War veteran who was angry over police shootings of black men

DALLAS — The heavily armed sniper who gunned down police officers in downtown Dallas, leaving five of them dead, specifically set out to kill as many officers as he could, officials said Friday. He was a military veteran who had served in Afghanistan, and he kept an arsenal in his home.

The gunman turned a demonstration against fatal police shootings this week of black men in Minnesota and Louisiana from a peaceful march focused on violence committed by officers into a scene of chaos and bloodshed aimed against them.


====

Sorry dude but that's how the world works. They ignored the peaceful protests then when police started getting shot things changed.

 

"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Its a universal truth.

 

Dude back in the days of bedsheets they did everything they could to make sure black people did not have any guns to fight back with.

Gun control historically has meant prohibiting blacks from ...
www.theatlantavoice.com › articles › gun-control-historically-has-mea... Southern states imposed
The Racist Origins of US Gun Control - Sedgwick County

 

///

 

The argument that one needs an automatic bullet spraying AR15 for hog hunting still cracks me up :-D
If anything bringing forth such an argument in all seriousness to keep those guns available to them indicates the opposite of what they're trying to portray

 

Guns in late 1700's were muzzle-loaders with flintlock ignition. During the Revolution a good soldier could reload a rifle in 30 seconds. I wonder, if the framers of the Constitution had any idea what weapons would be like in the 21st century how they would have worded the 2nd Amendment. A totally rhetorical question I know. Still, these people weren't stupid...

 

I would think those tradition loving gun owners would value more traditional rifles and ways of hunting. Not saying they should prefer and use a 200 year old one with flintlock ignition But definitely not a silly bullet sprayer neither

 

So if the blacks just had guns, they could have taken care of those armed guys in the bedsheets? Maybe taken down a couple, before them mob closed in on them?

 

Something like that ya.

 

The KKK was one of the earliest anti-gun lobby groups in American history.
It's where the democrat party's deep seeded roots in gun control originate.

 

They didn't had computers back then, yet the 1st amendment protects your right to go on here and say pretty much whatever you want to say as long as the forum allows you to say it.

 

No, the 1st amendment does not give me the right to say anything I want. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that government can restrict speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." There is no reason the courts couldn't reach a similar decision regarding the 2nd amendment.

 

In June of 1787, James Madison addressed the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on the dangers of a permanent army. “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty,” he argued.

They wanted us one equal ground in case the government became tyrannical. being necessary to the security of a free State.

a fascinating museum located in Titusville, Florida. a mostly original, early 1700s British Puckle Gun.



This was patented 73 years before the 2nd amendment was written.