HOME | DD
Reddbecca β Think about it
Published: 2007-04-16 22:15:09 +0000 UTC; Views: 3372; Favourites: 61; Downloads: 28
Redirect to original
Description
Doesn't need much explaining, does it?Simple concept. People who are forced to disarm will always be murdered by someone that refuses to comply with the law. The only way to stop the killing is to stop the disarming.
Related content
Comments: 135
Well, selling guns to terrorists is treason, to start. The rest, if they aren't part of our laws, should be immediately. I see nothing unconstitutional about it. Even so, do you really want a gun in the hands of someone that thinks the voices in their heads are out to get them? Yikes.
π: 0 β©: 1
There used to be a time in my life when I would readily support such a position. However since I have realized that the world isn't nearly as simple or just as I used to believe I have long since abandoned these naive notions. I can no longer support litigation of a right because of a few extreme examples that cause significant public outrage. Without due process every single one of us is no more than one stroke of the pen away from being victimized by politicians and bureaucrats that believe our political positions are in need of being punished and/or "corrected" with extreme prejudice.
π: 0 β©: 1
So mentally insane people, criminals, and terrorists have the right to a gun? How giving some illegal who was previously convicted of aggravated assault a gun violates my rights, does it not?
π: 0 β©: 1
Maybe I'm just nuts, but I don't particularly favor the notion of sacrificing millions of innocents for the purpose of inconveniencing a handful of criminals, even if it might somehow save one or two lives in a given year. The price paid is far too great for the return.
I prefer things done openly, through the courts, with an option for appeal. I abhor the notion of definitions of prohibited individuals being made on the basis of broad strokes that can encompass as many people as possible, and punishing them simply because they fit a vague definition rather than because of deliberate actions.
It's also not a good idea to increase the social stigma of "mental illness" because such tactics may cause people who really need help to not seek it due to fear of being persecuted further.
π: 0 β©: 1
Innocents aren't being sacrificed. If you're innocent, you've nothing to worry about.
Maybe I'm not clear; I meant violent criminals, not the one guy who has unpaid parking tickets. I'm talking about the nutjob who tried to kill someone with a machete. When he's out in 15 years, what do we do? As for terrorists or illegals... they shouldn't even be here, so why we're considering giving them a gun in the first place is beyond me.
I'm not worried about that one bit. If a few of them are afraid to seek help, let them be afraid. Don't give a deadly weapon to a person with an IQ of 40 who thinks that people who dare look him in the eyes wants to kill him and can hear his thoughts.
I don't have a negative view of guns, but I do have a negative view of our government's handling of guns. They advocate for gun control for citizens yet sell them to Mexican drug cartels, which is sick. They might as well arm Al Queida. They'd probably do more good that way.
π: 0 β©: 1
Innocents are always being sacrificed in the name of politics. Look at military veterans for example. Simply because someone is assigned to them in order to help them sort out the redtape necessary to receive their benefits, the VFW has classified them as mentally defective and they're barred from life from ever owning a firearm. They weren't officially mentally adjudicated, they were victimized by unprofessional bureaucrats.
As for terrorists and illegal immigrants, seeing as they aren't American citizens they can't legally buy guns anyway. But people who are unjustly convicted of supposed domestic battery being barred from ever owning a gun again because of one scheming bitch filing false charges, that's completely unacceptable. And I'm saying that as a woman. I'm at war with my own gender because of some of the underhanded tricks that they've used to hurt others for no acceptable reason.
π: 0 β©: 1
I stand corrected, but that's an example of the gov't overstepping its bounds. You and I both know they're out to take our guns so that they can march on the citizenry unopposed.
So in other words, benefit of the doubt for the criminal? That's just what's wrong with this nation. Guns are for law-abiding citizens, and nothing can change my mind about that. A guy who tries to chop off his son's head with an ax shouldn't get a gun. A guy who hears voices in his head that tell him to kill the white people shouldn't have a gun, either. Domestic battery might not be grounds to do it, but attempted murder is.
π: 0 β©: 0
"People who will use guns to break laws, will break laws to use guns." I wrote a paper over this not too long ago. People have the right to defend themselves. It is not right for people to be forced to be at the mercy of a criminal while they wait for the police to show up. Sure sometimes they get there right away but also there are times where it will take them awhile to show up. Concealed carry permits are not just given out. These people have spotless records. They have been through background checks, and are often proficient shooters. Them having a firearm does not make their location into a shooting gallery.
π: 0 β©: 0
'Criminals don't obey the law. It is more or less a requirement for the job.'
-Terry Pratchett, Night Watch
π: 0 β©: 0
I'll only be happy when they legalize anthrax.
π: 0 β©: 0
Gun control law only helps the criminals. What do criminals do best?..............Well, break the law. Introducing gun control law will leave the honest and law abiding population open for attack by criminals.
Author Carol Quigley, a Georgetown professor, mentor to Bill Clinton, wrote in his book called Tragedy and Hope how the difference between a feudal slaved society and an industrialized advanced society is the possibility for common population to own firearms.
π: 0 β©: 0
I think that you are only half-right; guns for defense would only work if more people would be taught to respect life.
π: 0 β©: 2
well I agree, mostly, the only gun control we need is responsibility.
π: 0 β©: 0
Respect is a two-way street. The killers don't want to respect our lives, I don't see why I should be legally obligated to extend to them the same courtesy. They wanna kill me, I'll kill them instead.
π: 0 β©: 1
I understand that. What I'm saying is, more parents should teach their kids from a young age to respect others. Many killers have started out because their parents let them get away with abusing animals or other people, or they are too strict and fuck up the kids' minds.
π: 0 β©: 0
aye captn i see your point, but are you saying you'd take the acuracy of a hypothesis above the accuracy of a comparrison?
i mean the missing things you name are quite linked to eachother, i.e for a country to legalize guns they need a certain type of government
how ever i do ofcourse see that america is so different from the netherland even though each western country becomes more "americanized"
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not really saying anything except gun control can't be the one distinguishing factor that's responsible for the various crime rates of various countries, because it's just too hard to believe. For that to be true every country would have to be alike in every single way, and then there would need to be hard proof to show that the various gun control laws were the exclusive element that contributed to the crime rates because everything else failed.
In short, there's going to need to be a lot of work done to determine what does work and what doesn't work, and no soundbite solution is gonna cover it.
π: 0 β©: 1
man this is way to much talk over something like this so tell me to shutup if ya want to,
however with this you state that the give everyone a gun solution probably isn going to cut it either
to be honest, i should not be able to get a gun, someday i just wanna freak out and what happens when ive got a gun then, but thats besides the topic Β¬.Β¬
man i really dont like guns.. i should chek if im even a guy
sorry if this doesnt make sence to you, i just rolled outta bed
π: 0 β©: 0
since i am short on time i did not read the discussion above, but simply decided to ask you a question reall quick,
why does it seem that most americans find it so hard to look at what goes on in the rest of the world, i mean when i see something like this i wonder why you never looked at a country like holland (where i live) where guns are forbidden and it has a infinitly lower cryme/murder rate
i mean how could a hypothesis like " if the others had guns the could have stopped the criminal" possibly overthor such a strong fact?
π: 0 β©: 2
simple, you have a much lower population, thus less murders. if your talking per capita, then go to any "redneck town" and see the crime rate there, practically zero
π: 0 β©: 0
Because there's no way to guarantee that the statistics available on other countries are accurate or honest. That's why comparisons of one country to another don't work. It also doesn't take into considerations the various other factors, like the type of government that's in place, the powers of the police, the rights of the people living there, the overall culture and various trends. Too much is missing for any sort of comparison to be accurate.
π: 0 β©: 0
It's not a matter of regulation, it's a matter of education. We wouldn't have to worry about not trusting these student victims if there simple education programs to make gunowners understand how to respect the weapon that they own and its destructive power. Then these poeple can own weapons and defend themselves from homicidal assholes.
The only issue I can see here is when police arrive and don't know who is the victim and who is the killer. (As in, who shot first)
π: 0 β©: 2
There are already education programs in place.
And it doesn't matter if the police can't tell who the good guy is and who the bad guy is when they first arrive, because they treat everybody at the scene as a potentially hostile individual until everything is sorted out.
π: 0 β©: 2
You're exactly right about how the police in the US treat those at a scene. Everybody gets cuffed and things are sorted out. From my experience, the majority of line officers do believe in the right of the citizens to be armed. It's those who are elected (sheriffs and prosecutors) and those who have to deal with politicians (chiefs) that spew the nonsense that gun control is necessary. I should know, it's the field I've been in for awhile.
π: 0 β©: 0
Point well made. Thanks for the input.
π: 0 β©: 0
There are already education programs in place.
And it doesn't matter if the police can't tell who the good guy is and who the bad guy is when they first arrive, because they treat everybody at the scene as a potentially hostile individual until everything is sorted out.
π: 0 β©: 0
Disarmed by their government?
sheesh...
Anybody with half a brain would not think to let college kids have guns on campus.
Think about itβ¦.
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't get it really. If college students can't be trusted to be responsible with carrying guns at school, why can they be trusted just about everywhere else? A lot of college students have qualified and received their concealed carry permits, they're allowed to carry just about everywhere in their state, so why can't they carry at schools? They're not shooting up the supermarkets or the grocery stores or anywhere like that, so how exactly is college campus somehow infinitely more likely to be the site of a massacre by a student with a gun?
π: 0 β©: 1
many college kids CANT be trusted just about anywhere else.... sure some of them are very responsible students... but are all of them? College kids are notorious for getting into trouble. give them all guns and imagine what mayhem could spawn.
beside your statement that the government 'disarmed' them is false, why would a college student carry a gun into class.... it is perfectly legal to own a gun in the US, but how many actually do? even if it was legal to carry a gun on campus, WHY would they have them... to collect dust.... guns are not needed on campus.. or at least not needed enough for students to carry them around like a notebooks or something..
you take your whole gun thing to far... IMO, like a preacher that damns everybody that does not attend church on a given sunday, or a person that tree sits in Berkeley to keep the trees from being cut down, or even like ....never mind I hope you get my point...
sure guns have a place in out country, but saying the government disarmed the kids that were killed that day is just plane silly
π: 0 β©: 1
Well if college kids can't be trusted, then why are we allowing them to run free instead of arresting them and locking them up for being untrustworthy?
Why would a college student carry a gun into class? Because classrooms are often picked as the site of massacres by deranged killers who don't give a fuck one way or another. They carry for the same reason every other concealed carry holder would carry; for their own protection.
And my statement about the government is completely correct. They passed the Gun Free School Zones Act in 1990, and after that school massacres started happening a lot more often and becoming even bigger and messier.
π: 0 β©: 1
""Well if college kids can't be trusted, then why are we allowing them to run free instead of arresting them and locking them up for being untrustworthy?""
because you dont lock people up for simple being irresponsible , your just being silly.
""Why would a college student carry a gun into class? Because classrooms are often picked as the site of massacres by deranged killers who don't give a fuck one way or another. They carry for the same reason every other concealed carry holder would carry; for their own protection.""
you are telling me that ALL college students should carry guns, and that would stop attacks like these? I suppose you want everybody to carry guns in high school too.... sheesh.
""And my statement about the government is completely correct. They passed the Gun Free School Zones Act in 1990, and after that school massacres started happening a lot more often and becoming even bigger and messier.""
they didnt die because the government 'disarmed', your saying that if this law was not passed in 1990, that they would have all had guns in their backpacks next to the history books.
We are supposed to be evolving, not going backwards to a time when everybody carried a weapons in fear of their life.
I am done with this little 'talk'. I honesty hope you dont believe everything you write and are just being argumentative in anger.
π: 0 β©: 0
i hope someday liberals will realize that CRIMINALS DON'T CARE ABOUT LAWS.
π: 0 β©: 0
Cho's emotional problems were constantly manifested in his speech and behavior, and the fact that no one reported that is the real tragedy. Given his history of odd behavior, he should not have been allowed to buy a gun from a store. Also, Virginia Tech allowed an HOUR AND A HALF to elapse between the first two killings at Norris Hall, and the rest. What was wrong with their alarm system? Did they have one? I can't buy the argument that more guns, especially with younger people, will increase safety: If we allow college kids to go about armed, what's stopping someone from killing over a dented car or a love triangle? There are people out there crazy enough to do that.
π: 0 β©: 1
Given his history of odd behavior, he should not have been allowed to buy a gun from a store.
Blame the judge for not having him committed to a mental institution for his own safety. If that had been done then the VT killer would've never passed a background check.
If we allow college kids to go about armed, what's stopping someone from killing over a dented car or a love triangle?
Well we've had concealed carry about about 20 years in 48 states, and anybody over 21 who can pass the qualifications can legally carry a gun; even college kids. I've yet to see any reports about college kids killing each other over dented cars or love triangles. And if it was going to happen then we'd have some evidence of it before now.
I see no justification for suspending concealed carry on school campuses. Those who attend school but possess carry permits DO carry everywhere legally allowed, they're trusted to be responsible and prove themselves to be. Simply changing the setting to that of a school shouldn't change things.
π: 0 β©: 2
I have a permit and I carry my gun anywhere I can legally have it.
π: 0 β©: 0
Most college kids are under 21. It doesn't matter if they're a freshman or a twenty-three year old graduate student. There are kids at my high school I wouldn't trust to carry a letter opener, let alone a gun. Most people out there are responsible enough to carry a gun, and want to carry one for the right reasons, but it only takes one, over and over again.
π: 0 β©: 1
Most college kids are under 21.
Well then most college kids obviously wouldn't be carrying a gun now would they?
It doesn't matter if they're a freshman or a twenty-three year old graduate student. There are kids at my high school I wouldn't trust to carry a letter opener, let alone a gun.
It doesn't matter if you trust them or not, what matters is if the people in charge of the licensing trust them.
Most people out there are responsible enough to carry a gun, and want to carry one for the right reasons, but it only takes one, over and over again.
It only takes one what?
π: 0 β©: 1
One shooter. And I'm confused-didn't your cartoon say what a good idea it was for college students to have guns, now you're saying that their age should prevent them from having guns?
π: 0 β©: 1
One shooter.
Disturbing how one sick individual can hold all the others in check simply by breaking the law isn't it?
And I'm confused-didn't your cartoon say what a good idea it was for college students to have guns, now you're saying that their age should prevent them from having guns?
Gotta be 21 to buy a handgun, gotta be 21 to get a concealed carry permit. That's the law on the books.
π: 0 β©: 1
And yet it's amazing how often that law is wavered or simply discarded at time.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's why it's called a crime.
π: 0 β©: 1
And it's also amazing how many crimes of this nature get unnoticed everyday.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's because we're not a police state. New York is the only forsaken place in the country where stop and frisk is in effect. The other 49 states know better than to randomly stop people on the streets and subject them to invasive pat downs simply because the police are racially profiling you as being suspicious due to your skin color.
π: 0 β©: 1
...who said anything about race or ethnicity?
π: 0 β©: 1
Just sharing the relevant information. Stop and frisk is really the only way to find out when a person is illegally carrying a gun, but only New York gets away with it. And they usually search black people on the grounds of being suspicious and most likely to be carrying something illegal.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yet another stupid thing that penetrates the minds of innocents.
π: 0 β©: 0
I have to disagree, In the UK guns are illegal and we have a substantially lower rate of gun crime than the states, I'm not saying that you shouldnt defend yourself but guns are never the solution.
π: 0 β©: 2
um, you seem to be in ignorance of the issue, you have a lower population, and go to any "redneck" town and the crime rate is almost zero, all you see are mistameners. And australia, there another example of what happens when you disarm:
* Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%
* Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%
* Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
* In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%
* There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of- the-elderly
* At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm"
* The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions
* The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has risen to 112,000, a 200% increase, in response to the ban and as an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.
* Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh woe, 'The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions', the horror!!. Crime rates are on the increase due to the recession and increased population numbers of most urban areas. Also, it's 'misdemeanour's'.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>