I want to have a Discussion about gun violence
Any thoughtful ideas and commments will be paid in SBD
In light of the recent mass shooting in Las Vegas, USA, I wanted to have an open discussion about gun violence in America. After tragic events where many lose their life due to an armed person wanting to inflict harm, social media blows up with Left s Right rhetoric, where the gun debate turns into hostility and nothing is accomplished. In this post I want to start a discussion about whether or not citizens should own firearms, how many, what type, etc and whether there is a solution that we can agree upon for stopping these acts of terror that have seemingly become omnipresent.
Rules - A discussion and debate not an argument - (Thoughtful insight will be paid in SBD)
If you are going to participate in this discussion there are a few rules you must adhere to:
- Constructive ideas
- No name calling of any sort.
- Trying to stick to facts rather than opinions
- Understanding that there is no easy solution.
Some Facts - For
As the second amendment in the United States Constitution reads, Individuals have the right to bear arms for the main purpose of self-defense, oppression and defense of the state. This was originally adopted in 1791 and is one of the fundamental arguing points for pro-gun activists. You can read more on the second amendment here.
There is no question that guns are a big deterrent to would be criminals. Self defense is still the largest part of gun usage in America. If regular citizens are allowed to carry guns they can stop would be attackers before damage is done. An interesting post regarding the public being allowed to carry concealed weapons;
An analysis of the FBI crime statistics found that states that adopted concealed carry laws REDUCED crime
Read more of that article here
The case can be made that we are safer when everyone has access to guns, with thorough background checks, licensing and training. Have a look at American Gun Facts. I have fact checked a few (not all) of these claims and cross referenced their citations. Some are from valid sources while others click to dead links. Either way, before you take my word for it, it's always good to cross reference.
Against
So we have briefly looked at the case FOR guns, now lets do the same AGAINST
America by far and away has the largest number of mass shootings in the world. America also has a very large population, so when adjusting per 100,000 people we still see that America leads the way. America also has by far and away the largest military in the world, perhaps there is a correlation there, but you be the judge. The US also has the highest suicide rate of the top 10 most developed nations and a large majority of these suicides are by gun. Here is the Wikipedia Page, it gives a in depth breakdown of gun violence in America. If you prefer more of a visual, I have linked a video which gives a breakdown of gun violence in the US, I highly recommend watching it. Always remember there are many many statistics that people will throw out and use to argue for and against guns, remember we should always be critical and cross reference everything.
Here we have a simple meme that talks about what happened in Australia after there was a mass shooting years back. It is difficult to compare Australia to the United Sates, just like it is difficult to compare any two nations, but the facts don't lie. Since Australia's action on guns, there hasn't bee a mass shooting since.
Lastly, I have shared a clip from a recent Jimmy Kimmel monologue where he takes about what happened in Las Vegas and the death of many innocent civilians. To quote from his piece:
After reading a lot of the online discussion in the aftermath, many people say this is terrible, but there is nothing we can do about it, but I disagree with that intensely. Of course there is something we can do about it.
Give the video a watch and just listen to his thoughts. Whether you agree with his comedy, his personality or his show is not important here.
So to finish off, no matter which side you support, whether you're black, brown or white, we must come tot the table and discuss the issue at hand and come up with solutions, because one thing I think we can all agree about is that the current situation is not working. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and opinions. Remember, thoughtful comments will earn you SBD
I'm not sure whether taking guns away or not will ever help out saving lives. I don't know if we even take away all the guns if it would even stopped any of the senseless killing of human lives. The day that the calamine shootings took place here in the United States another senseless killing took place over in China a school was also attacked but with a man used a machete. In New York a bomb. It just goea on and on. I think its a humanity thing Iwish people would just love one another and there would be no one or group hurting each other.
I do not have the answer but my thoughts and prays our with you all.
Yeah there is violence everywhere in the world, but in the more developed western countries, the US leads the way, and it looks to only be getting worse. For the good oh humanity we really need to think of solutions to this problem
My son found a quote that's been circulating: Blaming guns on violence is like blaming spoons on obesity.
Taking away firearms will not stop a criminal from acquiring them, They don't follow the law. A mentally ill person also- just because there is a law on the books will not stop a sick person or a criminal from doing what they want.
Also, think about it- we only hear about the bad. That is how the MSM is set up. We do not hear about the hundreds of lives a day that are saved because of firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens. We do not hear about the toddlers who still have a mom because she carried a pistol legally and defended herself against an attacker. We don't hear about these things.
We only hear of the negatives.
With that being said, I personally do not see why automatic and semi's are needed for "home and personal defense," however in a supposed free country, once the citizens begin allowing the PTB to take "rights" away, it begins a domino effect and pretty soon there are no rights left and really stupid and disgusting things start happening. Look at homeland security.
Someone who is driven to do such horrendous acts will do them no matter what. Cooking meth is illegal but there are recipes and detailed instructions all over the regular, public internet. Just a quick Google search away. And just because the recipes to cook the drug are there for the public to easily access, and the ingredients are made from common household items you can purchase anywhere, does not mean everyone uses them to bake a crack cake. You only hear about the few bad who do, not the millions who don't.
You make some good points.
With regards to the spoon analogy, a spoon is something to help you eat that is what is was designed to do. A gun was designed to shoot/destroy/kill things. That’s it’s purpose. Maybe because guns have become so ubiquitous in American culture, people feel the need to have them for “protection”.
You’re right about the stories we don’t hear though, obviously the media will not report on that, and yes law abidingcitizen with carry and conceal firearms can definitely help out in a dire situation. Personally, I don’t see the need to go to Walmart to buy some things and bring a gun with me, that thought has never even crossed my mind.
There will always be criminals breaking the laws and it’s no different with obtaining guns, but what if the government were to buy back guns and amunitions and have them destroyed? With less and less out there on the market would how would you feel?
Regarding the spoon analogy: sure, spoons were made for eating. But they're also handy tools for the act of shooting drugs ;) Humans, as well as many creatures, devise ways to use things not as they were intended all the time.
The government would have to cause an economic crisis to justify a gun buy back at this point. But things would be so shaky I don't think it would work. If things got that bad even people who are against guns would be clamoring on the black market. In a case such as that, crime will rise dramatically, and people will need to defend themselves as even now there's nowhere near enough law enforcement officials to make a difference in the event of something big.
My thinking behind that?
Why was the food stamp program developed? The ptb realized a hungry man is a desperate man. Who will do anything... In cases of economic crisis, or just uncertain times in general, people have less faith in their government.
If that were the case with less and less on the legal market, there would be more and more on the black market. And I would feel fear. And I do not feel fear now. And I say this as a mom who's son- also on Steemit :)- was in a school shooting a couple years ago..
Yes people can take any good invention and make it into something destructive, we have seen this throughout history, but a guns sole purpose is destruction. When guns are so easily accessible what is to stop someone who feels bullied, depressed, angry at their spouse, pissed off at the driver in front of them or any other number of reasons from committing a heinous act with a gun?
Who do you need protection from? Aren't the police supposed to do that, or is there absolutely no faith left in the system/government? I have traveled to numerous countries where firearms are both legal and illegal, but only in America have I seen people so proud to be a gun owner. Maybe it has just be ingrained in the media and education system.
There was a crazed man living on my property that I live on with my kids. Just three weekends ago the police told me there's nothing they can do but ticket him.. Three police men. The man had been living on my property. He started a fire in me and my neighbor's property three weekends ago.
The officers told me I can use a gun in this situation, because there's nothing they can do.
I don't understand exactly how the laws work everywhere, but trespassing is a criminal offence where I am from. I don't understand how there is nothing the police can do.
Hi! Perspective from an Aussie who does not own a gun....To see people die at the hands of maniacs with guns is truly horrifying and I am in no way trying to downplay the gravity of recent events, however... I think an important point that needs to be addressed, yet seems to consistently being overlooked is the fact that the recent events in Vegas were carried out using guns with ILLEGAL modifications, so technically his guns weren't legal anyway. Does anybody actually think he gave two shits about that? So had guns been illegal altogether would it have really made a difference?
The other point, and I believe this is by far the more important of the two is protection against oppressive regimes. Now this might stir people up a little but I venture to say that the more than 100 million people that were murdered in the last century under marxist dictators internationally far outweighs the number of deaths by insane, lone gunmen...That's not even to mention any other forms of oppressive government (that's JUST Marxism).
I understand these are heavy discussions that do need to be had, but if I were in the US, I would be far more concerned about the dangerous people who want to take your guns than the chance you might get shot by a crazy person and to be REALLY real, from an international perspective I believe that the power that (those who want to take the guns) would gain from that would also have severe implications on a global scale. Perhaps that is a slightly selfish perspective but to a degree I almost feel like the US citizens are a sort of "last line defence" against a truly oppressive globalist movement that is just waiting in the wing for it's chance to strike...
My 2c.
I'm a legal citizen of the US with dual citizenship with Italia. I lost nothing if the US removed firearms.
But any government who wishes to remove something which a countryman has is scary indeed.
What other rights will tptb be terminating?
Yeah there is no easy answer and you’re right about oppressive regimes, whether it’s the current North Korea dilemma to stalin’s Russia or Ceausescu in Romania, when the state has too much power, the people are in trouble. And with the amount of guns/tanks/drones/weapons the American government has, it can be very difficult to convince any citizen to give up his arms. But this is at least a discussion that needs to be had
No pressure or anything guys haha..
I wish I would see more people voicing this. I think a lot of people feel this way, but either can't or for whatever reason don' voice these opinions. I'm hoping to get an article out on this later today if you'd like to check it out.
Will do man! Let me know when you post it and I'll come have a look, I'm following you now but my feed tends to get so full of crap that I just head straight to the "political" feed now anyways :)
https://steemit.com/guns/@mattclarke/this-is-what-you-sound-like
I agree with much of what you said, however, I do have to mention a few things. 1 the "bump stocks" are a 100% legal modification. 2 they, along with the 100 round surefire magazines mitigated the carnage. both are gimmicks, useful only for seoerating the gullible from their money. both features increase the frequency of jams, which the shooter compensated for by having more rifles available. on the subject of oppressive regimes, in ...I believe it was 1938, Adolph Hitler prohibited Jews from owning firearms. much easier to load people in boxcars when they arent armed
love this @jasonshick thanks for inducing the conversation. I think my biggest desire before getting into gun violence is just the desire to not harden my heart toward anyone dying regardless of the size. All of these deaths are people with families and friends that have to deal with the repercussions.
In regards to solutions - the problem is not guns. The problem is people. Trying to restrict people from being murderes is great. But I do not think guns are the problem. Sure we could increase our regulation on getting access to guns, which I believe would help to a degree. However people willing to murder people is the problem.
Trying to address that problem is massive, and our responsibility, and has to be looked at systematically in our culture. Guns are the symptoms.
One of the solutions that I would propose is a government that holds firm and somewhat harshly the enforcement of laws - to all people regardless of race, cultural background, and economic state. The government is not responsible to be merciful, thats individual peoples responsibility.
I think a look into Saudi Arabia's enforcement of their laws would help.
*I do not agree with Saudi Arabian laws - rather their enforcement of their laws is the point on want to make!
For example, if you smuggle drugs into Saudi Arabia they kill you.
harsh? effective?
you can read more about Saudi Arabia law for yourself and their enforcement of their law yourself...here is some light reading
http://www.vocativ.com/underworld/crime/saudi-arabia-execution-beheading/index.html
The problem is the US government becoming social justice police
the role of the government is to protect it's citizens, not be merciful. The role of our community is to come around people and help them, get them resources, express empathy and mercy.
Not the government.
I think the US government needs to up its enforcement of its law's, and in some ways develop harsher punishments.
I think it would at least put more ownership of the problem on local communities and not on the government. The problem with these mass shootings I do not believe is guns. I believe its much bigger then that.
Some interesting points you make here. It is a very difficult subject and like you said guns may just be a symptom and not the root problem. When there are so may factors involved it is difficult to single out just one as the main cause for the problem.
With regards to the strictness and severity. When people are afraid of the consequences for committing a certain crime they are definitely less likely to commit that crime. Like the Saudi example, If one or two examples are made then the public will learn that the government is not playing around. However, the same law exists in Thailand where trafficking drugs is punishable by death, but because of corruption, drug traffickers can usually pay of police and continue on.
Communities is an interesting point. When people are more tied to their community, crime is more likely to go down because of the strong social fabric. I think this might be the most telling point. When people don't feel isolated, they are less likely to commit heinous acts.
My perception - which could be wrong is that my millennial generation feels like they are activist because of social media but in reality do close to nothing in their actual local community. Instead they are looking to federal government to take on their value system. Which is not the governments job.
I think the Saudi argument is incredibly extreme - the point being our government's role is to just enforce the law. I think if local people in local communities actually engaged their community like they engage on social media, corruption in politics would begin to get addressed, racial stigmas would start to fall apart, local business' would thrive and people would be unable to get to the point of lunacy as we have experienced here with Las Vegas. This takes time, patience, and individuals steeping to the plate.
I hope to keep that trend moving in Fort Collins Co...
Really appreciate this dialogue -
Controversial topic Jason. I think it's important as an American to not give up any of our rights. Even if the argument is " for our own protection". I think that the gun violence is a symptom of the problem, not an actual gun problem. One thing that cannot be denied is that we have a greed and corruption problem here in America. On another note , we simply do not do a good enough job taking care of our mentally ill. It takes a mentally ill person to commit mass homicide. If we address the root causes we can solve the symptom related problems
I think that is a great idea. The mentally ill need to receive better treatment for sure. When people have physical injuries they go to the doctor right away. But when people have a mental injury the stigma associated with it keeps a lot of people from seeking proper help. This needs to change.
As a Canadian I know that we have stricter Gun Laws and there seems to be less gun violence but as we see lately there are many modes of destruction and the automobile is becoming the weapon of choice. Anything can become "weaponized" so we need to get to the Root cause of this violence. What could possibly inspire a human being to cause such destruction. Why are people doing this ? Obviously they have no respect for human Life or any life or anything and there must be something done in Society to teach people that this One and Only Life is precious. Whether you are Religious or Atheist you must come to realize that this Life is a gift (from God or the Universe) to be respected. Less guns may prevent some deaths but if Humans have no respect for Human Life then this problem will only grow worse.
Yeah, What happened out West was terrible and you are right that if people want to cause harm to others they will definitely find a means of doing it. I think social ties and a sense of community goes a long way to preventing these occurrences. When someone feels isolated and alone with nothing left to lose, then it is much easier for them to commit these heinous acts. That being said a gun is designed to destroy/kill/inflict damage, that is its purpose whereas a car is a method of transportation. People using spoon or car analogies and comparing them to guns are missing the point of what a gun is and was made for doing.
Don't get me wrong. Guns are designed to kill quickly and machine guns are designed to kill many people very quicky. My point is that the mind set that allows one human being to kill another human is the problem here.
Yeah we can definitely agree on that. I just think that if we make it more difficult for people with these intention to get their hands on these weapons, the public's overall well being will go up
I don't own a gun or ever really care to. The problem I see is... what would happen if you ban guns and the only people left carrying them are the Govt/Military and those who disregard the 'laws' anyways? Make things better or safer for whom? The politicians? Guns are not the problem, a tyrannical government with TOTAL control of it's unarmed citizens would be a BIG PROBLEM!
I think it would only be a problem if the government did not have its citizens best interest in mind. From the responses I've received on this thread, it seems like most people feel like the United States government does not care at all about its people and guns are a kind of last line of defense. There are many countries in the world where military and the police are the overwhelming majority of weapon holders and these countries do not have the issues that America is facing. One question for you, if no one had a gun versus everyone having a gun, in which scenario would you feel safer?
Framing the question around a mood-check, of how the current population feels about the imagined trustworthiness of the government of the day, to determine whether or not citizens should be able to defend themselves against the possibility of a government takeover, is like a council deciding whether or not to fund a fire department based on the average temperature of everyone's air-conditioned homes at this moment.
The first thing that happens when a government gets out of control in abusing a minority population, is that the international community seeks to send arms to that minority.
That is the kind of foresight that the 2nd Amendment represents.
It's only a ridiculous doomsday scenario to people who ignore the news and history.
That political situation has repeated itself throughout history, from as far back as the Israelites wanting to leave Egypt, the American Colonialists wanting to leave England, down to Catalonia (on the news today) fighting to leave Spain.
It is that reliable a prediction that even within America itself there was a Civil War, and, if not for the fact that the South wanted to take hostages who would be denied human rights as a premise of that new, separate nation's laws and culture, I don't know that the North would have won or even objected.
As a celebrated television producer once said through a character the the TV show he produced:
"Man only has the rights he can defend."
This unfortunately appears to be the case.
I would prefer no one to have a gun vs everyone, any day!
I'm not saying the Las Vegas event wasn't real or people didn't die or get hurt. Just check out this list and see if anything fits. 11 signs of a False Flag
I don't think there will be one idea that can solve it, but maybe there are some that can make it less likely to happen.
I completely agree with getting rid of auto and seim-automatic weapons, absolutely no need for them. a pistol or two should be more than enough "protection". I think the GPS tracking is good in theory but people would likely rip out the tracker. I like your ideas though
None of these work.
If the official story were true, (In Las Vegas) the lone gunman would have killed more people if he had a bolt action rifle. With an automatic weapon and the distances, he was just spraying bullets all over the place. It was just luck that they hit anybody.
Now, the hotel / casino has metal detectors and security. How did one person get so much guns and ammunition up to his room? He would have had to make a dozen trips, and had his car packed to the roof. (but I digress)
There is more than one type of gun sport. Skeet, deer hunting, pheasant hunting, shooting competitions. Anyone who loves guns, and gun sports, has a half a dozen guns just by having one of each type. Limiting someone to one is just... you might as well say none.
Basically, everything BUT a bolt action rifle is a semi-automatic. So, you just decided to ban 95% of what is currently in a gun shop.
GPS tracking would only affect law abiding citizens. Bad guys would get around the system.
And like I said before, this guy made a dozen trips to his car, in a hotel full of security. GPS would not have helped.
Never surrender your rights especially when the government is lying to you about what really happened. They have other motivations and governments with an unarmed public have killed more people than all wars combined.
I understand where you are coming from here, but this doesn't really address the question I posed in this post. How can we stop these mass shootings in the future and what can we do about the mass shooting problem that we currently face.
Jimmy Kimmel really doesnt know what he is talking about nor does he seem to truly care in a way that he should. He has armed security detail and increased it recently, He doesnt know the difference between semi auto and fully auto guns as this guy had a bump stock with a semi auto and anyways you cant stop evil from truly attacking when you have Europe wanting to rid of guns then knife attacks go up it wouldnt be wise to get rid of guns though what we should do is give out better knowledge on guns and teach people actual facts about them.
I think education about weapons is very important, more knowledge is definitely better for the general public. I don't know about Jimmy's personal life, but as a celebrity with this opinion on guns he has made himself a target and I can therefor understand his increased security detail. But he was not lying about the senators who voted against closing the loopholes on background checks. I thin the NRA and big gun money plans a huge factor in what laws get passed as well
My gut feeling is that no major changes will be made any time soon, if only because Republicans currently have a lock on the House of Representatives in large part due to successful gerrymandering. Perhaps SCOTUS will shake things up with a ruling on Gill v. Whitford that makes partisan gerrymandering more difficult, but I wouldn't count on it.
But, even more than a Republican vs. Democrat issue, it's a rural vs. urban issue. Might future demographic trends favor one side of the issue over the other?
I'm not sure that citing the Constitution is as powerful as some might think. After all, the Fourth Amendment is still nominally a part of the Constitution, but the Patriot Act and other legislation have rendered the Fourth all but moot. Something analogous might happen at some point in the future with firearms legislation, but not with the current Congress.
I don't think much will happen either, but I still think we should have a discussion about it. Left vs right has created huge rifts in society, so much so that even if you agree with something that the other side says, you cant actually agree with them, because it goes against your party and there is too much social pressure to do that. I think the media and government have done a great job at dividing its citizens so that almost nothing gets accomplished. I've never really considered the rural vs urban idea, what exactly do you mean by it?
Urban areas tend towards voting Democratic and rural areas tend towards voting Republican. But there are some exceptions suggestive of the urban/rural split on guns that I'm alluding to. Northeastern Minnesota for instance has only one place that could be considered urban (Duluth) but the region as a whole has a long tradition of voting Democratic and a strong gun culture with many hunters. Democratic-voting union members who go off into the woods on the weekend in search of a 12-point buck.
Ahh I see what you mean. I think we need to establish more than a 2 party system going forward as it shouldnt just be one or the other. This may have had success in the past, but in the 21st century this division is pushing people further apart on almost every political issue, with neither side wanting to compromise. If there were a 3rd or 4th party that took ideals from both parties I think that could be a starting point. Do you think something more than the 2 party system will ever see the light of day?
I would like to see that, ideally along with ranked choice voting. But it's been a long time since a third party has been been successful at a national level. And that was the Republicans supplanting the Whigs. George Wallace picked up five states, the Bull Moose Party was really just Teddy, a few Socialists in Congress way back when, but that's about it.
I suppose that a Greater Depression might yield a new strong party of the extreme Left or Right, but what we could really use would be a centrist party. I am having a hard time seeing that happen any time soon though.
Can we agree to that? Gun murders in the US have been in steady decline for decades and are at the lowest point they have been in over 20 years. Why change what is working?
Mass murders have been on an incline for years, something is not working.
The shooting In Las Vegas was perpetrated by the the Rothschild Banking Cartel with help from Sheldon Adelson and Michael Chertoff, this Is a Zionist run operation. Yes Shadow Government, Rothschild's and Deep State deliberate killing of Americans just like what happened on 911, where the Shadow Government and Israel conspired to massacre 2900 Americans. The only way Americans will keep any semblance of freedom, Is to maintain all their rights specifically the 2nd Amendment and to make sure they keep Semi Automatic Rifles. The only way to keep your freedom against a completely controlled and corrupt government Is to be armed.
In situations such as Las Vegas, no amount of concealed or open carried firearms would have made much difference. A rapidly fired weapon from a higher vantage point with a clear view of the crowd has a clear advantage over 600+ people firing blindly at a casino/hotel.
That said, I am not opposed to firearms, but I would like for their to be some mandated training and maybe stricter background checks. I don't know that these will do anything to stop angry people from doing terrible things, or if we even CAN stop that, so I guess I am among those who just want SOMETHING to be done. I generally keep my thoughts to myself on this, though, as I don't see it being helpful, just adding to the noise.
Seeing people walking around city streets with guns designed for a war zone seems crazy to me. I believe that guns are not the real problem but the sense of fear and violence that the US government has instilled in it's people.
When you have a government who resolves nearly all its issues with its neighbours through violence it becomes understandable that its citizens will start to do the same. And having such powerful weapons freely available makes the problem bigger.
Its like the cold war with it's mutual assured destruction (MAD), an arms race of people trying to prove who has the biggest penis.
On a glib note maybe bullets could be banned. The people can keep their guns and the senseless killing will be greatly reduced.
Excellent!! I love this. I take it you like guns? :)
Upvoted and Resteemed!
Actually if I had to take a stance I would say I am against guns. But I do understand how people feel about the second amendment and their right as citizens to bear arms. I’m Canadian, and I have never thought about purchasing a firearm, but that’s just me
Pull up some statistics about Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the US. I here on the radio of people getting killed all the time due to gun violence.
So tell me again how outlawing guns prevents gun violence. I understand there are exceptions to the rules and not all places that ban guns have problems with shootings (Australia for example), but I would rather have the choice of owning a gun in case I ever need to stand up for my beliefs.
In full disclosure even though I believe in the right to have guns I own no guns.
We have plenty of shootings; the drug gangs and bikers have guns, and use them to kill each other.
We tend not to have random sprees though, probably because culturally we're not as desperate to be famous.
The guns are already out there on the street, Trying to enforce laws especially in an area heavily run by gangs is not going to produce desired results. I don't think the solution is to simply outlaw guns. I just think that a reduction in automatic/semi-automatic weaponry, a limit on how many guns and ammunition a person can own etc would do a lot of good. A simple supply demand function as an analogy, If bullets cost $1000 a piece because of the scarcity less people would be loading up on ammo. A government that is so heavily invested in military spending and its own weaponry is going to have a hard time convincing its people to give up arms, but there needs to be some dialogue on ways to stop these needless deaths.
Some great points. Not only is our military so heavily geared, but they're now giving surplus military equipment to police. I would say if the police are allowed to have/use than I am within my right to have something equally as powerful as them to protect myself and my family from corruption.
I don't like limits or reductions genrally as a law. They make poor laws and here's why. What makes a weapon a semi-automatic/automatic weapon by definition? Where do you draw that line and who decides. Same goes with ammunition, how much is too much? What's too much to me who owns no guns maybe different from recreational shooters or hunters.
Look at what happened when they tried to ban alcohol. I don't understand why people think banning guns will be different.
Solodad: Take a look at my "replies" to see the points and systems. I put forward to Canadian Firearm owners.
좋은 게시물
@jasonshick got you a $9.04 (5.0%) @minnowbooster upgoat, nice! (Image: pixabay.com)
Want a boost? Click here to read more about @minnowbooster!
The @OriginalWorks bot has determined this post by @jasonshick to be original material and upvoted it!
To call @OriginalWorks, simply reply to any post with @originalworks or !originalworks in your message!
To enter this post into the daily RESTEEM contest, upvote this comment! The user with the most upvotes on their @OriginalWorks comment will win!
For more information, Click Here! || Click here to participate in the @OriginalWorks writing contest!
Special thanks to @reggaemuffin for being a supporter! Vote him as a witness to help make Steemit a better place!
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by miami (jasonshick) from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews/crimsonclad, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
This post has received a 7.69 % upvote from @booster thanks to: @jasonshick.
This post has received a 14.87 % upvote from @buildawhale thanks to: @jasonshick. Send at least 0.50 SBD to @buildawhale with a post link in the memo field for a portion of the next vote.
To support our curation initiative, please vote on my owner, @themarkymark, as a Steem Witness
This wonderful post has received a bellyrub 3.83 % upvote from @bellyrub thanks to this cool cat: @jasonshick. My pops @zeartul is one of your top steemit witness, if you like my bellyrubs please go vote for him, if you love what he is doing vote for this comment as well.
This post has received a 25.42 % upvote from @boomerang thanks to: @jasonshick
@boomerang distributes 100% of the SBD and up to 80% of the Curation Rewards to STEEM POWER Delegators. If you want to bid for votes or want to delegate SP please read the @boomerang whitepaper.
My favorite response to this is you can ban guns but you ultimately enable bad people real criminals to have them through the black market. Then you createed the scenario where I tweeted this out last week good article well-informed resteemed and upvoted! Thank you for your generosity cheers!
As simple as that, weapons are supposed to be used for both self-defence and leisure. Of course there will be aggressors or perpetrators around, so you'll definitely want to have a gun to defend yourself.
It's all about self-defence and to mitigate an aggression, whether it's from the State or a person, your odds raise considerably if you can fight toe-to-toe against an aggressor.
Instead of your life being in the hands of the other person, which has the powers of judge and executioner, your life will rely in your own actions.
Which one is better? In my opinion, the latter, undoubtedly.
your post starts with a false premise. The primary purpose of firearms is to place citizens on an equal footing with government forces. and the founders felt so strongly about that that they stated "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". every single word of gun control legislation is illegal."but the courts ruled.." the SCOTUS once ruled that it was legal to own human beings. "but convicted felons..." fine, I'll concede that a man or woman in prison cant bring their guns with them, they have to wait until they are released. "but insane people..." we cant take guns away from Democrats either.
No, this is where you're mistaken. The primary purpose of firearms never was or is to make citizens equal with government forces, you're deluding yourself by thinking so. Guns are made to destroy things, humans being included. I could care less If legislation passes about gun control in America. You yankees will keep going on killing each other. You are one of the most divided nations in the world, the current state of your politics just further proves this. This left vs right nonsense becomes more laughable by the day. You would rather nothing getting accomplished than see the other side have success. A sad state of affairs
yet with all our terrible problems, people from all over the world still want to come here. now picture, if you will a pretty young lady, 5'5", 120 pounds or so walking along the street. now picture, hell, lets say a guy my size, 5'10", 180 pounds. and this brute intends to rape her. its late, deserted area. what are her chances of stopping him? depends, in some place like England? she's gonna die probably. here? depends on the laws where she is. in my state? dude is gonna catch a couple to the chest
The media plays a large part in that. Personally, I ave been to america over 50 times and I would NEVER live there. Why on earth do people have to come up with these outlandish situations? Is there a chance that a young woman walking down the street is going to be raped in America? Is this the reality you live in? This tells me everything I need to know. Most incarcerated nation for a reason. A powerhouse on the verge of imploding. More worried about being shot by your neighbour than Kim Jong eun launching a missile at you. America needs to get it s shit together and not addressing the gun problem is just another reason that its on the demise
now see, you claim to want a discussion about guns, and then instead start bashing your betters. since Im certain you dont actually live in middle earth,and you referred to Americans as yanks, I'm going to assume you're a limey.
therefore, you live in a country where you have been forced to abdicate your defense toyour Masters, but still live in the most violent country in europe. I guess if you've been raised licking boots, you just get used to the taste, and being totally unable to defend your life and family,you just hope the Master keeps them safe,and allows you to continue bei g a good little subject. in your last response, you attempted to mock our political situation. however, lets face reality. the only reason you know about it, is because you live in a second rate country. hell, I dont know who runs the show in your country, whether you have a pope,or a duke,or whatever,because it doesnt matter to me. but our politics? they affect the entire world. hell,our Navy's army has the 5th largest airforce on the planet, and we're supposed to care what begger nations think? dream on.
Boom! Dangle a little bait and the fish come in to eat it up. Couldn’t have been any more wrong on all your assessments.
Look at when this post was made and look at the amount of discussion that went on.
Second, I’m not from England, but it doesn’t surprise me that you know nothing about the country, typical American who doesn’t get out of his own town.
You think having a big navy and army’s makes you a great nation? That’s laughable. All you’re guns aren’t going to save you from implosion. It’s amazing that in the 21st century you are still under the impression that you need a gun to keep you safe and that those who don’t have guns are hoping that the ‘masters’ keep them safe. Hope you eventually come out into the world and stop living under that rock
LMAO, I swear, this is like playing chess with a pigeon. you have no idea what the pices are, how they are supposed to be moved, but you think you are clever. lets review 1 you cant answer simple questions. 2 you pretend rape and other violent crimes don't occur in "middle earth". 3 you assume I haven't travelled extensively (more than 50 countries on 6 continents,boy did you blow that one!) 4 you're still a hoplophobe, that doesn't understand guns well enough to discuss them at any level. now, your original post was in response to the Vegas shooting,which was certainly a tragedy. however, I'm quite frankly glad of a few key facts, that you never considered,because you never realized.
1 the guys tactics sucked. in discussions with other veterans, the consensus was, with what was available to the shooter, anyone that actually knew what he was doing could have doubled the casualties.
2 dude owned a plane, and that concert was right next to an airport. if you think 58 dead was bad,Google "Oklahoma Federal building bombing" and try to wrap your head around a Cesna loaded up with fuel oil and fertilizer plowing into 20,000 people.
now, onto your latest post. having a large military isnt what makrs us a great country, but, again, it insures that the rest of the world does watch us, amazingly closely. because face it, if we get annoyed with your little country,we can demolish it. and theres not a damn thing you can do to stop us. now, you (unwittingly to be sure) made the point for gun ownership, and contradicted yourself in 2 sentences. "all your guns aren't going to save you from implosion"
gasp oh my Gods, you mean you think we might suffer a societal collapse?? well, who would keep my wife and kids safe from the mindless zombies and liberals whos welfare checks didnt arrive?? damn, guess I would have to.
here in the states, we have a saying. "when seconds count, police are only minutes away". the average violent encounter is over in less than 30 seconds. average police response time varies wildly, but the BEST Ive found is in the 4.5 minute range. the response time in my home is 1200 feet per second,the velocity of 9mm +P hollowpoints
hopefully you can get a glass navel, and see the real world around you
Okay, some of what you're saying is a little over my head but let me see if I understand what you're saying. The original constitution that was made to protect the people of America no longer does what it was set out to do? You see yourself identifying more as an individual rather than a citizen and you also identify more within your state than the actual whole of America?
I do see your point with invalid legislation being made by people who do not represent their people properly. I have always had a problem with many laws that have been enacted by the few as they really don't help out the "people" the government would have you believe.
But back to the gun issue, you see it more as a necessity against the state? how do we prevent these mass shootings where many innocent people lose their lives?
We cannot prevent things like the rain, we can however prevent mass shootings. I refuse to believe otherwise. If we couldnt prevent them then mass shootings would be a worldwide epidemic and not just a mostly american problem.
If the the most lethal weapon on the market is a hunting rifle or a pistol, that is a large step towards preventing a mass shooting
Maybe it is just the American culture that has become this way
Does this happen in developed nations?
How do you explain the case of Australia after it's mass shooting in 1996 and subsequent ban on long guns? There has not been a single mass shooting since. That sounds to me like the Australian government took preventative measures.