by Simon 166 Replies latest social current
The amount of people being killed by guns in the inner cities far outweighs the death toll of sensationalized deranged rampage shooters. But its not as glamorous to grandstand about.
Of course and what kinds of guns were used is relevant is it not ?
and why are there so many of those guns in possession by this many people is also of some relevance.
Hunting Boar or bear isn't the same as hunting Deer or Caribou
well you'll get no arg there. Ask anyone trying to sight in with a rifle that close with a dangerous animal charging you, you need a sidearm. ask anyone that's done a decent amount of med. to lg. game hunting. Sort of a necessity.
So the the inclusion of the sale of hand guns should prevail because of the possibility of amateurish inexperienced game hunting ?
Animal hunting should take precedence over the overall protection and the possible misuse of those guns upon humans.
Typical diversion tactic from freemindfade tch tch.
There are many ways to kill people but what the discussion is about is pertaining to guns and the causative effect of the proliferation of guns in a given population.
The amount of people being killed by guns in the inner cities far outweighs the death toll of sensationalized deranged rampage shooters. But its not as glamorous to grandstand about.
There are lots of different situations - mass shooting of white people enjoying some event is different to black kids being killed in inner cities is different to some guy shooting out in the countryside. They are not always given the equal weight as they should.
The US seems to be crippled by "has to work everywhere" thinking. In the UK it was not unusual for people living on farms to have gun permits for shotguns etc... but I'd be surprised if these were as easy to get if you lived in an inner city and would also be different in a more affluent area (where people 'clay pigeon shoot'. Is it unfair? Probably.
Lastly everyone has been pretty civil in here but stood their ground. I hope I'm not overstepping here but during this @simon and I have had some PMs on totally unrelated topics throughout this whole deal. Seriously as if this thread didn't even exist and here we are on polar opposite sides of the fence.
:thumbsup: @Hadriel - I totally believe it's possible to disagree without being disagreeable, even to have heated robust debate and not fall out. I think you can respect someone and their right to their opinions even if you don't necessarily agree with them all.
Yes fink typical diversion blah blah *fart noise*
Did you watch ghost guns yet? I really want you to see from a criminals perspective how your "bans" work I'm certain cultures.
Relating to the point of this thread is that whenever certain federal or State governments want to curtail the proliferation of guns in their responsible areas, the gun industry says hey no way and they hold up the 2nd. amendment.
There are certain people in government positions in the Sates that realize that there are so many guns in possession within the population that some of them are being used unlawfully, logic follows reason.
So in the intent to make their area safer they impose stronger regulations on to what kind of gun can be sold and to whom. The gun industry on the other hand respells most of these newly devised laws because they see them as restricting their sales, therefore ruining their associated involving businesses.
What you see happen is that whenever there's a violent massacre in the States and its realized that the assailant used a high power semiautomatic during the event and some empathetic government official ( ie.Obama) says we should stop the sales of those kinds of guns, the first people who say no way are the ones that have possession of those guns themselves, a contradicting irony is it not ?
Gun ownership in america is a demand
Someone is going to meet it
Happens everyday
Whether its "Gun industry" or "Black Market"
My problem with basically everything you say Fink is it is oversimplified and is not a real solution.
You ban guns. You have stopped a fair amount of foolish people from owning guns and potentially misusing them. Ok.
Your gang bangers and mass shooters ARE STILL GOING TO GET GUNS. Might it be harder? maybe harder for someone like you, but a criminal will always find away, its the same with selling sex, selling drugs and selling guns. Its as simple as knowing where to look and having money. So there are problems that will be solved by banning guns and saying you shouldn't have this one, and you shouldn't have that one, and this one is too deadly, and on and on... minor problems. It doesn't change the path of the criminal. It doesn't make guns not exist. The deranged person is going to find a deadly weapon and use it. Wether its a banned gun or van full of fertilizer. You really have not solved the problem you keep referring to.
You are going to stop some nitwit from shooting himself in the foot, or from their kid shooting them from the backseat, you may stop some marginal negligent idiots. You are not stopping the big fish.
