If your for gun control your for victimizing innocent people. Criminals are willing to break the law regardless, the only people affected by gun control laws are law abiding citizens.
Yep it's true here in Australia I watched as a complete psycho who couldn't get a gun licence murdered over 30 people on the news so they then enacted massive gun controll even tho the gun he used was an already illegal gun that had been already handed in to police so it turned out a cop had sold this machine gun to a complete psycho but no cop was ever charged, only our rights were charged. Now we watch as home invasions/violent crimes rise at a constant just after. FIGHT HARDER THAN WE DID USA
This is not an arguable point due to deap loyalty to American rights.. Therefore straight points of fact must be made that cannot be disproved or disagreed with.
Such as, just under 30 000 people are killed in North America by firearms annually since 2010 and twice as many injured. In comparison to the UK's 900, where gun conrtol is extremely strict. Lets be blunt, you care more about ur right to bare arms then your citizens dieing, something has to change.
@muzicz13 And how many people are in the U.K. compared to the U.S.? Did you even compare the overall violent crime rates? To sum it up, your analogy is bogus. I don't own a gun and never have. Shit, I have not even fired one, and have barely touched one, but it's every person's right to have one to use responsibly. Again though, CRIMINALS DON'T ABIDE GUN CONTROL LAWS, therefore you only disarm the NON-criminals with gun control laws.
@muzicz13 Why not just compare China to England, since population ratios have to importance to you or to your argument. in a city of four people, one person is a criminal, so the crime rate is 25%, the most dangerous city around in your argument.
You don't need guns, the pink bunnies, the invisible man in the sky, and the cops who will not protect you will be there to protect you. Sure guns actually exist, and sure they will be there for you unlike the cops, but fuck you guys; I want the criminals to be protected for a change. So ban guns so we criminals do not have to worry about getting shot while I rape and rob
@SexyArcanine666 I thought you criminal/gangbanger types were supposed to be tough badasses; but what's up with your pussy talk, like you're worried that an ordinary law-abiding Joe Citizen with a gun could defeat you? According to Sarah Brady you should be able to take Joe C.'s gun away and stick it up his ass, but you're worried about getting SHOT? Some thug you are!
There are a number of countries today where the governments DO use millitary force to control their people with total disregard for basic human rights. Americans are gauranteed the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from becoming such a country. We are gauranteed other rights as well, such as the right to LIFE and LIBERTY, but this right is specificly designed to give us the power to protect those other rights. Our government HAS NO RIGHTS, only the authorities WE give them by OUR choice.
It's just common sense that the more gun control there is, the less incidents like this are going to happen. I'm from England and yesterday in Cumbria a taxi driver went mad and killed 12 people, this is the worst example of gun violence in the UK since the Dunblane massacre in 1996 (also carried by out a man with a gun licence).
22 people were killed in this Texas restaurant, how many similar incidents have happened in America since this one? A hell of lot more than 2 that's for sure.
@graemeoliver84 ya and if everyone else had a gun they would have shot that dumb ass down in 2 seconds so shut the fuck up you dont know shit ya some people kill people so what if someone kills someone with a knife your going to make knives illegal?
@graemeoliver84 Its not JUST COMMON SENSE. Its much more complicated than that. You think criminals or madmen are gonna care about anti gun laws? Most of them DON'T EVEN BUY THEIR GUNS!!!! If they break the law when it comes to obtaining a firearm WITHOUT gun laws, what makes you think they are gonna turn it over.
@TheGreatRL That argument is over. You can hit that dead straw man as much as you want, you are not achieving anything. Nobody is suggesting that gun laws will take guns out of the hands of dedicated career criminals. Nobody ever did. Stop trying to make a hundred lame arguments, one excellent one will suffice, and she gave it in that video.
@MartinJWillett First of all, look at the guy I am replying to. That IS what he is suggesting. Second of all, If thats not the point of gun control, then WHY HAVE IT?
@TheGreatRL The point is to reduce the number of guns in circulation to reduce gun accidents and incidents in which people who were not up to that point criminally minded flip and resort to shooting to resolve their issues. That's their strongest argument. It's good, but not good enough. Stop trying to win every point, you don't need to, the case against gun control is sound and does not depend on their every argument being poor.
@MartinJWillett "The point is to reduce the number of guns in circulation to reduce gun accidents and incidents in which people who were not up to that point criminally minded flip and resort to shooting to resolve their issues"
So basically you are saying good citizens become criminals because of guns??? Wow. You officially have no right saying ANYONE'S argument is weak.
@TheGreatRL No I'm not. Guns cannot stop people becoming crazy can they? If people who own guns become crazy they become crazy people who already own guns. This is a regrettable situation. Trust me on this point. It is. Nobody has the capacity to tell who might flip if bad things happen to them or who will just become less stable anyway. It is inevitable that some people (whether they own guns or not) will go crazy, if they own guns this is worse than if they don't. This is not rocket science.
@MartinJWillett "if they own guns this is worse than if they don't. This is not rocket science" ITS NOT THAT SIMPLE!!!! Does this have to be beat into your head? If you want to take away good citizens guns because they might go crazy, then you might as well take away their cars, shoes, and knives too because those are more responsible for deaths than guns. When someone goes crazy, you have a gun to protect you. When a criminal tries to harm you, you have a gun to protect you.
@TheGreatRL I am against gun control. But that does not mean that I have to find every argument used for gun control to be wrong in every detail. Why is this too hard to grasp? There wouldn't be a debate if one side was wrong about the logic of every step of every argument they use. They have a good point about people going crazy with guns: it is A Bad Thing. But it is not a sufficient argument to disarm everybody, not least because it makes people defenceless and therefore creates victims.
@MartinJWillett Wait a minute. You are against gun control yet you give arguments FOR gun control. You confuse the hell outta me. " But that does not mean that I have to find every argument used for gun control to be wrong in every detail. " Sure nobody HAS to find anything wrong with ANY argument, but anyone that wants to sound logical, will. In a nutshell, you are basically telling me not to try and sound right.
@TheGreatRL Not at all. If you are arguing that tigers are more fierce than lions you don't have to make out that lions get beaten up by mice and regularly get spooked by small beetles. You don't have to trash every aspect of the opposition's argument and deride them for putting it up, you just have to supply a minimum of one decent argument against them, which is easy. Don't make your life difficult and make yourself look stupid into the bargain.
@MartinJWillett "If you are arguing that tigers are more fierce than lions you don't have to make out that lions get beaten up by mice and regularly get spooked by small beetles" Do you seriously have no idea how ridiculous you sound? If you want to make a good argument, then yes that is necessary. " Don't make your life difficult and make yourself look stupid into the bargain" Its not difficult to call someone out when they make a bad point and sounding logical doesn't look stupid
@TheGreatRL Do you think that to argue that tigers are more fierce than lions you DO have to make out that lions are pussycats? You are arguing wrong if you think that you have to combat every argument with a counter-argument no matter how lame and strained. You don't. You just need one unanswerable argument for your side. Yes it is a bad thing when people abuse legally owned guns. Admit it. It will not destroy your case at all. But making transparently stupid arguments will.
@MartinJWillett Right. But that isn't the ONLY thing I was stating. Look, I know where you are going with this. You're going for the whole "no sense in beating a dead horse" method, right? But there are just some gun control supporting idiots who just don't get it, so there ridiculous arguments and claims have to be countered so that they get it. It IS necessary sometimes but that wasn't the ONLY technique I was using.
@MartinJWillett Criminals are more afraid of armed victims rather than unarmed victims. You can agree or disagree all you want but one thing that is not debatable is that "ITS NOT THAT SIMPLE"
@graemeoliver84 Nonsense. There has been gun control and there has just been another incident, with a shotgun. Nobody is going to ban people from owning double barrelled shotguns and cars, which is what allowed this incident to happen. You don't get mass killings in places where there are armed people. They happen where there are no guns. Where guns are forbidden, so the only person with a gun is the nutter, protected by the gun laws until his suicide-by-cop arrives on cue.
@MartinJWillett The statistics speaks for themselves, the US has about 100 times more gun-related deaths than the UK. Americans belief in their right to have arms is more about culture than logic.
@graemeoliver84 Correct. They have a gun-owning and gun-using culture and they want to keep it, and being a democracy they have a good chance of doing so. I won't stand for ignorant claims on either side saying the other is crazy. I don't know which I respect less, ignorant yanks telling me my government is going to murder me after disarming me or British people saying all Americans are gun-totting murderous lunatics.
@SexyArcanine666 I am not all Britons. You are not all Americans. Are you with me so far? This might take some time. Some Americans are ignorant yanks (all Americans are yanks, some are ignorant). I do not "buy gun control". I support the right for people in a free country to own guns, but not every weapon system imaginable. Because I support the right to own guns it does not follow that I agree with every pro gun argument and dismiss every gun control argument. This is because I am not stupid.
@graemeoliver84 Are you serious? The US is much more populous and has much more criminals. And are you so illogical to the point where you think that criminals are just gonna hand over their guns and not get another one? Gun control only disarms law abiding citizens and their right to protection.
Yeah, *every lunatic* should be allowed to carry guns so that next time a madman storms into your cafe and start executing people, you will be able pull out your magnum, shoot the guy, look at your anti-gun friend and as you blow the barrel say "see, I told'ya".
@misium Why would a madman expect to be able to kill a group of people who may be armed? You didn't get spree killings in the Wild West. How is it "going out in a blaze of glory" to burst into a crowed restaurant, fire three shots and then have half of the back of your head blown off by a fat man who lives in his parent's basement? Spree killings require unarmed/disarmed victims.
@MartinJWillett Because a madman is _mad_. I am not sure how life was like in the wild west, but somehow I think there was quite a lot of shootouts and sprees. It's not the best commercial for gun safety.
@misium I don't remember any tales of people walking into bars and coldly shooting people at random, because they'd be dead within three seconds if they tried.
I remember watching a Michael Moore movie where he said Canada is so safe, no one even locks their doors. He said it was because of gun control. I then found another statistic that said the country with the highest reported rape was Canada.
@GuitarHeroPhenomSux Reported rape statistics depend upon women expecting a sympathetic hearing. Rape is under-reported to a massive degree. Where women are confident that the police will handle the complaint well and stand a good chance of securing a prosecution - where they are actively combating rape - there will ironically be more rape reported. Contrast with Saudi Arabia where victims expect to be treated as adulteresses and stoned unless they have reliable witnesses, reported rape is low.
Actually I got that from this conversation: Ko252 @MrRustyt2011 That is an invalid claim. The problem with other weapons is that they are far from as effective, as a gun. And criminals? Well. they will always better weapon than the average joe, or do you suggest everyone to go around with ak47 and bazookaes?
Just because some people are criminals does not mean they are better at firing a weapon than a normal law abiding citizen or more dangerous at that. I think you need to read or just go out and experience the world more and stop basing your opinionated non-sense on just plain stereotypes.
@catylist666 I have never implied that criminals are better to fire. where did you get that? Read or just go experience? I always do, and always will. I would prefer you to stop being a hypocrite, and follow your own advice.
@Ko252 I also found it entertaining at the part when you said "And why shouldnt it be aloud to carry around bazookaes, sword, ak47, knives and poinsoned daggers?". LoL. Are you serious?
I think your one of the reasons why the goverment is contemplating on more strict gun control. Cut back on the video games kid. Go out and play kickball.
Very entertaining argument with binkten. So you implied that if/when your face to face with a gunman you could defend yourself without the means of a gun. LoL. Ok. I think you need to lay off the Steven Seagal movies.
@catylist666 I didnt imply anything, I stated that, face to face with a gunman, there are other way to protect oneself. Within 21 feet, a gunman has a disadvantage, and as close you are, this disadvatange increase. With greater space, I would rather prefer to run. And steven seagal? I could very much damage to a gunman with a rock.
We are long overdue for a revolution!! The democrats and republicans are one party with two wings. This is not a two party system and has never been! When the government stops representing the people and republic it is our duty to overthrow it!! VIVA LA REVOLUTION!
I don't get it. The treaty of Versailles (the treaty that forced disarmament on Germany after WW1) was an contributing factor to why Hitler wanted to kill the Jews?
@SilverShieldGrp Interesting idea. Pure bollocks though. After Hitler began systematic mistreatment of the Jews he liberalized the gun laws. Just in case you don't know the word liberalized means made them freer. The only gun control measure Hitler enacted was to make the possession of pistols and rifles by the general mass of citizens easier. That's Hitler, the Nazi leader who regularly rode around in the back of an open-topped car. That's not the message the NRA likes to give, is it?
If there was no such thing as a gun, he couldn't have shot your parents, could he? What else was he going to do, noogie them to death? Look at how few Brits are killed in this manner ever year, they don't have guns, the police don't even carry guns!!
@RedVynil the gun isnt the issue. if someone wants to kill, they will do it regardless of the tool they use. knife, gun, garotte wire, strangulation etc. the reason strict gun control doesnt work is that it has no affect on criminals. they will get them somehow if they want them. all it does is make it harder for law abiding citizens to use them.
@MrRustyt2011 That is an invalid claim. The problem with other weapons is that they are far from as effective, as a gun. And criminals? Well. they will always better weapon than the average joe, or do you suggest everyone to go around with ak47 and bazookaes?
@Ko252 actually, as it i based on fact, it is not. In washington d.c there was a gun ban that was lifted a few years back. it was enacted in 1976, and incidentally the murder rate was 55% higher after the ban. in kennesaw georgia it is mandatory for the head of house to own a firearm. in 1982 after the law went into affect, crime dropped 74% in the 1st year and continued to drop.
@Ko252 also your population is much smaller, which would affect the # of murders. This is america, where we have the freedom to own a gun. without that ability, the american population would be at greater risk because so many guns are already in circulation that criminals would always have them. and once the government takes away your gun rights, soon all your other freedoms follow. its taking away your ability to defend yourself
@MrRustyt2011 Yes, it is smaller, but if look per cent wise, we still have less gun related murders. The solution to many gun in circulation, is not to increase the gun in circulation. The government take away your gun right? Well, you have already lost the right to trial, if the government suspects you to aid terrorism, with or without proof, and you're crying out loud because of gun control?`Wow
@Ko252 the government does not have the power to decide if guns should be produced or sold. its none of their business. yes, im more upset over gun control because it affects far more people. and usually the CIA has it right about whos a terrorist. and its not all about gun rights, its freedom in general. at every turn the gov. is restricting freedom more and more. thats why its important to take a stand for freedoms like these.
@MrRustyt2011 No, the gover dont have power to deceide wheather produced or not, but regarding sold? yes, it has. Your next point is far from it: You have lost the cornerstone of every single society, and far more people can be affected by this, if the govern wants to, namely a fair trial, a right to meet your accuser, etc. That is far more severe than guncontrol, 1.you can get guns on the blackmarked as well 2. you can use other weapons. What if you go to jail, for no reason, and havnt trial?
@Ko252 they do not need to control wether guns are sold as it is a citizens right in this society to buy one. i agree, a fair trial if falsely accused is important. if you are a murdering terrorist, sure, you should still have a trial. im sure some probably havent, but hey there still gonna get punished. if the gov. suspects you to aid terrorism, then you probably did aid it. the CIA is very good at what they do.
@MrRustyt2011 Of course there must be a control over who gets the gun. Is it okey if children do too? What about other weapons, like chemical weapons? Or explosive? Should everyone be able to buy such? A fair trial is an important cornerstone in EVERY democratic society, regardless of what you are. Lets say the CIA suspect guys like you, for gun control, to aid terrorism, is that a good enough excuse to jail you in guantanamo for rest of your life without a trial?
@Ko252 children having guns is beside the point: of course kids shouldnt have them, thats not what i said. guns are not biological weapons or explosives, that has no relevancy to this argument. A fair trial is very important, you are correct. supporting gun ownership has nothing to do with inciting terror and being a terrorist, but i know what you mean. maybe the gov. will one day consider us terrorists. if that is so, then we will again have to overthrow an oppressive government.
@MrRustyt2011 One way to overthrow an oppresive govern is to start early, with confronting the govern with the changes, like the one that you are guilty until proven otherwise, if they suspects you of terrorism, etc.
@Ko252 exactly. that and standing firm on the issue of gun rights. and anything else they try to take away from us. thats why i am supporting it now. we are confronting the gov. now
@MrRustyt2011 Gun control doesnt mean a shit, if you loose the right to free trial, as you have. Or the right to meet your accuser. Or to be unguilty until proven otherwise. Why dont fight for that? That is far more important than any gun control
@Ko252 I havent lost the right to a fair trial. if i commit a crime, i still get a fair trial and get to meet my accuser. i understand the point you are trying to make, but refrain from commenting on things you dont know the whole story on. if someone in the US is suspected of terrorism, then they have some kind of a connection to it. thats why EVERYONE else is isnt worried about it, because honest citizens are not going to be accused of having terrorist activities.
@Ko252 I havent lost the right to a fair trial. if i commit a crime, i still get a fair trial and get to meet my accuser. i understand the point you are trying to make, but refrain from commenting on things you dont know the whole story on. if someone in the US is suspected of terrorism, then they have some kind of a connection to it. thats why EVERYONE else is isnt worried about it, because honest citizens are not going to be accused of having terrorist activities.
@Ko252 I havent lost the right to a fair trial. if i commit a crime, i still get a fair trial and get to meet my accuser. i understand the point you are trying to make, but refrain from commenting on things you dont know the whole story on. if someone in the US is suspected of terrorism, then they have some kind of a connection to it. thats why EVERYONE else is isnt worried about it, because honest citizens are not going to be accused of having terrorist activities.
@Ko252 I havent lost the right to a fair trial. if i commit a crime, i still get a fair trial and get to meet my accuser. i understand the point you are trying to make, but refrain from commenting on things you dont know the whole story on. if someone in the US is suspected of terrorism, then they have some kind of a connection to it. thats why EVERYONE else is isnt worried about it, because honest citizens are not going to be accused of having terrorist activities.
@Ko252 I dont see how. can you argue that a civilian can safely utilize biological weapons for self defense? if you are in a self defense situation and you are the victim, you are not going to be 300 meters from your adversary. most confrontations involving self defense are within 20 feet. a gun is used every 13 seconds in defense against a criminal in the US. in over half of the situations where a gun is used for defense, there are 2 or more attackers.
@Ko252 I dont see how. can you argue that a civilian can safely utilize biological weapons for self defense? if you are in a self defense situation and you are the victim, you are not going to be 300 meters from your adversary. most confrontations involving self defense are within 20 feet. a gun is used every 13 seconds in defense against a criminal in the US. in over half of the situations where a gun is used for defense, there are 2 or more attackers.
@Ko252 I dont see how. can you argue that a civilian can safely utilize biological weapons for self defense? if you are in a self defense situation and you are the victim, you are not going to be 300 meters from your adversary. most confrontations involving self defense are within 20 feet. a gun is used every 13 seconds in defense against a criminal in the US. in over half of the situations where a gun is used for defense, there are 2 or more attackers.
@Ko252 I dont see how. can you argue that a civilian can safely utilize biological weapons for self defense? if you are in a self defense situation and you are the victim, you are not going to be 300 meters from your adversary. most confrontations involving self defense are within 20 feet. a gun is used every 13 seconds in defense against a criminal in the US. in over half of the situations where a gun is used for defense, there are 2 or more attackers.
@Ko252 it is impossible to utilize biological weapons and explosives as a self defense measure in a confrontation with a criminal. do you really think you could hold your own, unarmed, against 2 or more attackers, with at least one of them possessing a firearm? to think so would be delusional.
@MrRustyt2011 Ever heard about granate? That is explosive, and can very well be used in self defense. With two attackers with gun, you will also have problems, even though you have a gun yourself. And who said, I can use other weapons in that situation?
@Ko252 you mean a grenade? sure you could use it, if you are 15 meters away from your attackers as a grenade has a 5 meter kill radius and a 15 meter casualty radius. as i previously mentioned, most situations where you need to defend yourself are within 20 feet, there is no way you could use a grenade in that situation. also, why would i rather carry a grenade than a gun? im not trying to desintigrate my assailant, merely deter them.
@Ko252 you said that my argument for guns could be applied to explosives and biological weapons. well, can you use either of those weapons for self defense? no, not safely without injuring yourself. thats the whole point of why you would carry a gun. in most cases, when a gun is fired in self defense the criminal is never even hit, but just firing the gun near them is enough to scare most criminals off. i dont want to kill my assailant if it can be avoided.
@MrRustyt2011 Of course it can. A hand granade is a explosice, do you really think that cant be used in self defense? That also goes to biological weapons, since you can call an upcomming war, self defense also. If you carry a knifte, you often dont stab the criminal, so that should be alloud to. Bombs as well. Why dont strap yourself with one, if they try anything, you treatens to blow yourself up. You want, but want take that chance.
@Ko252 you misunderstand. i am talking about a situation coming from a restaurant, in a store, in your home etc. when you might need to defend yourself. in that instance, a gun is the best protection. how could you possibly use a grenade to protect yourself in such close quarters. the objective isnt to walk around loaded to the teeth with weapons. its to be as safe and secure as possible. why carry grenades around when its impractical and a gun can do the job.
@MrRustyt2011 That is just bs, and pardon my french. Gun is not always the best defence. In close range, gun is almost as dangerous for yourself, as it is for the people around you, especially if it is a struggle. Knife is way better. Why carry gun, when running away, or using stones can do the job?
@Ko252 how is it dangerous to yourself to have a gun? so youre saying that in the process of being attacked, you pulling out a gun and shooting your assailant is somehow dangerous to you? seems like its more dangerous to your attacker. im sure things like stones can be useful, you can kill someone with anything. but there is no denying that a gun has been and is the most effective weapon to use against criminals.
@Ko252 statistics on assaults in the US show that out of all the crimes that have been stopped or prevented, a gun was the means of self defense in 70% of the situations.
@Ko252 also, use of explosives or biological weapons can have unintended consequences. innocent people around you could be killed and wounded by those methods. they are uncontrollable and unpredictable. furthermore, i am trying to avoid harm to myself, why would i use a device that would hurt myself as well. use of those methods in those situations would certainly not be beneficial to me. you are talking in extremes and hyperbole, neither of which helps your argument.
@MrRustyt2011 Unintended consequences? How? the military use it, and they seems to know how it works. I can agree with biological weapons being more unpredictable, but granade? Come on, both of us know that isnt correct. A gun can hurt you too.
@Ko252 sure, a combat zone has a few slight differences than here at home. you cant just lob a grenade at someone here. im talking about legal ways to defend yourself, grenades are illegal for civilian use. besides, its overkill for use in a self defense situation. saying that instead of using a gun, you would use a grenade to defend yourself is like saying that since you get a splinter in your finger, you are going to cut your arm off. its just as unneccassary.
@MrRustyt2011 So you think that all self defence situations are alike? you can never think of a situation where a granade can be used as self defence?
@Ko252 here you go again taking things out of context. i said that in a self defense situation in your house, in a dark alley, as you exit a restaurant etc., you cant use a grenade as self defense. which is true. now if you want to interpret self defense as on a battlefield, then yes, it can be self defense. but thats war. an average citizen cannot safely utilize a grenade in self defense situations on the homefront. a gun is much more controllable, and thus a better choice.
@Ko252 simple solution: dont be in a position where you could be a terror suspect. keep a clean nose, follow the law, dont research how to make bombs and finding local terrorist organizations. as for the black market, if guns are outlawed, and criminals get them from the black market, what kind of sense does it make to say that if law abiding citizens want a gun they have to break the law to get one? it defeats the purpose. all that does is hurt those that follow the law.
@MrRustyt2011 Who decide what "terror" is? Lets say the CIA and government thinks that everybody support abortion of the gun control, is a terror trait, since they have the possibility to rush down the government? Then what? Did you forget what the tea party was for the British? A terror attack. What kind of sense? You dont cure a disease, to get infected more and more. The gun control, should therefore also ban the blackmarked, and the police then have a job to do.
@Ko252 you make a good point here, and this is something that all americans should beware of. the gov. could very well consider us terrorists in the future. people advocating guns might be called "terrorists" and thats when there will be another revolution: when the US gov. no longer distinguishes between friend and foe, and citizens lose their rights and liberties. thats why i fight for my rights now, while there is still a chance and we are not considered enemies of the state.
@Ko252 no, not everyone has to have an AK, but a citizen should have the freedom to own a firearm if they choose to. if a criminal knows that a person has a firearm they are extremely unlikey to assault them. now those against guns, they can choose to not have them. if you are so against them, then the next time someone shoots up your walmart or attacks and muggs you, we shall not interfere as gun use is against your wishes. i kid, as i would do my duty as a citizen and for everyones safety
@MrRustyt2011 the problem with everyone carrying a gun, is that one crazy person is enough to release, and that not everyone is stable enough to carry one. I am not American, and here is it quite hard to get a gun, and therefore we have never any columbine or shooting at walmart, etc
@Ko252 you are right, there are crazy people out there. but if someone has their mind set on doing something, you cannot deter them, they will do it. I can appreciate the statistics of where you are, as it is more peaceful there. but that is exactly the reason it is a benefit here. if citizens cannot carry guns legally, criminals will still carry anyway. therefore, having the ability to carry for defense is a huge benefit.
@Ko252 remember, you are safer having us around than not, as we are the true first response team. by the time police arrive, its too late. who is going to stop the psychopath mowing people down in your local supermarket besides us?
well, most of us are sane, but just because there are a few crazies, that shouldnt prohibit us from ownership. it all comes down to this: gun prohibition may work for you all in scandinavia, but it doesnt work here. it is not a cure all for gun related murders. it has been proven that exercising gun rights here reduces crime and murders. this is the land of the free after all.
@MrRustyt2011 Yes, it should, if there is no 100% secure way to know who of you is or can become crazy with a gun. How can you know that it doesnt work there? I bet the number (per cent wise) in the old west was higher than it is today. No, it is not a cure, but it will make it more difficult to gain a gun. Exercise gun rights? That bs. Land of free? hahahah. Is that the same country that opened guantanamo? And can arrest people without them having any fair trial?
@Ko252 you are entitled to your opinion, but i dont see why you care as you are in scandinavia. you do not have to live with us. i know it doesnt work here because the #'s prove it. whenever guns have been prohibited here, crime has gone up. yes, gun rights. its not too hard to comprehend, we want the ability to defend ourselves with a gun. i dont see how gitmo bay is relevant. and i know, the U.S. is corrupt. but there are still many of us that fight for the real america
Would you rather they go unarmed? I would rather have a 9mm with me than nothing If I ever had to come face to face with a gunman. When you give RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE weapons they're a liability . Take Virginia tech for example. The police took 12 minutes to get there. Do you know how long it would have lasted if a teacher had been carrying a gun? less than 12 seconds.
@binkten I know how to defend myself without a gun. And why shouldnt it be aloud to carry around bazookaes, sword, ak47, knives and poinsoned daggers? Your same arguments can be used about these. Who will deceide whom is responsible? And how can you ever know that this person will always that resposible? What kind of restrictions do you have to prevent crazy persons to get a hand on a weapon? Can you stop these "responsible" people to fire an arm, if they are drunk, very angry etc?
@RedVynil for example, in virginia they just passed a bill that allows firearms into etsablishments serving alcohol, thank god. because where do criminals and robbers attack? they wouldnt wait outside a mcdonalds for their prey. they wait in dark parking lots of red lobster and nice restaurants, for targets that have more money and valuables. it just makes sense.
Really? How do you explain the fact that most people that owns a gun end up hurting them selves or a loved one instead of a would be burgular?
How do you explain the fact that the US have over 10.000 gun related deaths every year while most countries in Europe barely exceed a couple of hundred?
What is it about these guns that you guys love so much?
Guns are A) fun B) fun C) FUN!!!, D) highly useful, and D) a constitutional, utilitarian, natural, god-given right.
I'm curious about your facts though. I do not doubt their truthfulness, but they are very vague.
Does "gun-related deaths" differentiate between crime-related, suicide-related, and accident-related deaths? No offense, but I wouldn't be surprised if the actual criminal business accounted for most of the difference.
Ok, I think you're kidding a bit...but I do believe many has this attitude that guns are FUN! :P
Yes alright, I enjoy shooting a gun at the range as any other...but having respect for the weapon is crucial. A gun should have the same status as a hammer. They are both a tool, should be used as a tool and can be deadly in the wrong hands. I'm horrified when I read about little kids finding their dads unlocked loaded gun!
@feonor26 well take a look at norway during WWII, the civilians didnt have any firearms and the nazis were able to take norway with little resistance. if they had had guns, it would be a different story. if during the US revolutionary war, civilians hadnt had guns, there is no way we would have won.
@MrRustyt2011 What good would it do it all the civilians had firearms? None of them had army training or were very organized. Those who were took to the hills or went to training in the UK for the resistance fighting and did an heroic job on that. The germans were a highly trained, diciplined and a very organized army. If any civilians would have tried to use a gun on them, they would have been slaughtered!
@MrRustyt2011 The US indepence war happened 100s of years ago when the world and your country was very different. The US was very young and didn't even have a proper infrastructure. Today you have the largest army in the world which guaranties your country's safety. Who's going to invade you? Canada?
This is womans thinking is backwards and dumb. She's asking why she wasn't allowed to carry with her a gun so she could take out the shooter. But that's totally wrong direction to go.
Instead of asking why she wasn't allowed to carry a gun in public, people should ask why guns are so easy for everyone to get hold of? Handing out guns to everyone is not the solution and is IMHO to be asking for trouble.
Your right to carry a gun was maybe valid 200 years ago with the indians etc...times change
so tyranical governments dont exist anymore? times change right? people have no guns only the government does. is that your solution to less murders in this country?
What does suddenly tyranical governments got to do with anything? Are you suggesting that you have a tyranical government? As far as I know, you are a democracy, and the power of the people is and should be in the ballot not in arms. There is no reason what so ever that anyone else than the police and army should have weapons. Your paranoia of the government killing you all if you don't have a weapon is a stupid exchuse made by gun nuts who refuse realize that owning a gun creates more sorrow!
no we are actually a republic. look up democracy and what it means. democracy would mean that we would have to vote for every fucking little thing. like can i take a shit in my house lets vote on it kind of deal. so we are a republic. but the idea of the second amendment is to make sure that the government fears its people not the people fearing its government. thats all it is its not paranoia. its reassurance.
Alright, but you do have democratic elections of government...can we agree on that?! THAT is where your government (and all other democratic governments) should fear their people. Not in the threat of making armed revolutions, but in the threat of removing them from power by one stroke of the pen, so I believe you have misunderstood the fear concept there.
A government is there to govern the peace and manage everything practical a society needs. Peace is harder to govern if everyone owns a gun
how do you remove someone from power that refuses to get out and has the military on there side??? peace is harder to govern if there are people who refuse to follow the law. not because of guns. but because of the outlaw complex where people refuse to listen to a higher authority.
Well, now you are laying out the worst case scenario with a totalitarian government taking power by a coup. Luckily I don't think the US is in that situation, but if you were I don't think a bunch of unorganized para-military civilians with guns would be any match to a trained military force. The best way a people can insure its rights is for every generation to fight for their democracy and their right to vote. Don't ever let too much power be divided over too few people.
just because you don't think that could happen don't mean it wont. why did America separate from Britain in the first place? because of high taxes and the tyrannical injustice felt in the colonies. we as a young country don't want to repeat such an atrocity. who has the power when the government has the guns? and militia men won against the red coat british army. most just farmers. training can only go so far.
My point is that again, you can't look at today with 17th century eyes. Back then only a selected few had the power to vote and the governments weren't as pressured by media and public opinion. The best way to ensure your and our freedom is to make sure that the power lies with the people through the right to vote. If the power is shared among too few people, you will have a tyrannical government. Look up Tony Benn, he puts the democracy tern very well
@feonor26 yes but to forget the past just because its the past is a mistake and a mistake that has been made in the past. voice can easily be silenced by a gun. so to say public opinion matters will make sure that the government doesnt turn on its people is just false.
I find your attitude disturbing. Voilence will always breed more voilence. The fact that you would rather swear to a gun than taking care of the democracy is frightening. You guys have to open your eyes and realize that GUNS KILL PEOPLE!!!
@feonor26 i find your attitude disconcerning. violence is the world. people in it are naturally violent. we will always find a way to kill each other. if it isnt guns its something else. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!!!
Right, so because we are "naturally voilent" we should just give up on the fight against voilence? Lets just bring in totalt anarchy right away, it's in our nature to kill eachother anyways!
@feonor26 quiet being an idiot and look at our history before guns was invented did we not still kill each other? did we not go to war for frivilous things? people say its the 21st century blah blah blah. but when are they going to open there eyes and realize that human nature does not change, only the times and technology.
GUNS dont KILL people, people KILL people !! and as gothgirl16 sed if thay bann guns we the responsable people will be the only one with out self defence.
James Brady is one of the worst people in the country. The blood of the hands of the millions killed by gun control laws is on the hand of James Brady and everyone who supports gun control.
I own guns, hell I love guns they are a complete marvel to our species. But they also show the stupidity... Sure in this one case (among many few) it could've worked out in her favor. But just as in P&T's death sentence episode You're taking a life. Gun deaths high in America why, our laws. Low in other countries like Europe.. more strict gun laws. Guns don't kill and people like this make the fact more correct that People Kill people.
US has the largest land force on earth. And Navy. And AirForce. US has the largest declared nuclear arsenal. US has the largest undeclared nuclear arsenal on the planet. What are you defending yourself from with your piece of shit illegal pistol?
How stupid can people be!?
More guns is not the answer.
And the fact that you should have guns to protect yourself from the government.
How stupid is that!? They have already raped your once great country and left it to die a slow death. Its sad to see what greed does to a country.
MrOscarSthlm 5 days ago
An armed society is a polite society,
out law guns and only outlaws will have guns.
AfterFauve001 4 months ago 3
@AfterFauve001 Don't forget it's the criminals who also support gun control, love it in fact.
DravenWolfe 3 months ago
@AfterFauve001 Those willing to give up liberty for security deserve neither.
mattxr2i 2 months ago
If your for gun control your for victimizing innocent people. Criminals are willing to break the law regardless, the only people affected by gun control laws are law abiding citizens.
Pookie7985 6 months ago
I love Penn
frithar 6 months ago
@hatetrain1000 If I lived in the US I would carry to, that's why I don't! Your gun culture is out of control!
feonor26 7 months ago
Yep it's true here in Australia I watched as a complete psycho who couldn't get a gun licence murdered over 30 people on the news so they then enacted massive gun controll even tho the gun he used was an already illegal gun that had been already handed in to police so it turned out a cop had sold this machine gun to a complete psycho but no cop was ever charged, only our rights were charged. Now we watch as home invasions/violent crimes rise at a constant just after. FIGHT HARDER THAN WE DID USA
ANTICARBONTAX 7 months ago
When she said how many bullets can fit in a clip and not magazine, I cringed.
dewd223 7 months ago
This is not an arguable point due to deap loyalty to American rights.. Therefore straight points of fact must be made that cannot be disproved or disagreed with.
Such as, just under 30 000 people are killed in North America by firearms annually since 2010 and twice as many injured. In comparison to the UK's 900, where gun conrtol is extremely strict. Lets be blunt, you care more about ur right to bare arms then your citizens dieing, something has to change.
muzicz13 8 months ago
@muzicz13 And how many people are in the U.K. compared to the U.S.? Did you even compare the overall violent crime rates? To sum it up, your analogy is bogus. I don't own a gun and never have. Shit, I have not even fired one, and have barely touched one, but it's every person's right to have one to use responsibly. Again though, CRIMINALS DON'T ABIDE GUN CONTROL LAWS, therefore you only disarm the NON-criminals with gun control laws.
kommisar 8 months ago
@muzicz13 Why not just compare China to England, since population ratios have to importance to you or to your argument. in a city of four people, one person is a criminal, so the crime rate is 25%, the most dangerous city around in your argument.
DravenWolfe 3 months ago
So let's all carry guns everywhere we go.
One crazy guy and we have let all you gun nuts have all the guns you want and go anywhere you want.
SamWiseGingy 10 months ago
this should be required viewing for all students in America.
ABGAN100 10 months ago
if the mad man didn't Own a gun, than that would have changed the odds for everyone at the time.
ZOA360 11 months ago
You don't need guns, the pink bunnies, the invisible man in the sky, and the cops who will not protect you will be there to protect you. Sure guns actually exist, and sure they will be there for you unlike the cops, but fuck you guys; I want the criminals to be protected for a change. So ban guns so we criminals do not have to worry about getting shot while I rape and rob
SexyArcanine666 1 year ago
ya, it is not fair,or right that a man gets shot just because he robs granny when she is at the store.
nero8289 1 year ago
@SexyArcanine666 I thought you criminal/gangbanger types were supposed to be tough badasses; but what's up with your pussy talk, like you're worried that an ordinary law-abiding Joe Citizen with a gun could defeat you? According to Sarah Brady you should be able to take Joe C.'s gun away and stick it up his ass, but you're worried about getting SHOT? Some thug you are!
bjggjb 10 months ago
If the gun control legislation enacted in Washington DC is any indication, taking away the right to own a firearm does not deter crime
thermonuclearwarfare 1 year ago
There are a number of countries today where the governments DO use millitary force to control their people with total disregard for basic human rights. Americans are gauranteed the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from becoming such a country. We are gauranteed other rights as well, such as the right to LIFE and LIBERTY, but this right is specificly designed to give us the power to protect those other rights. Our government HAS NO RIGHTS, only the authorities WE give them by OUR choice.
Mindcrime121 1 year ago
@joeratti Given that in many parts of the US they'll let any idiot have a gun it's a wonder it's not higher.
graemeoliver84 1 year ago
@joeratti USA population is closer to 300 million. When you account for that it still means the gun death rate is 20 times higher.
graemeoliver84 1 year ago
The politicians who implement anti gun laws are so full of shit they probably slosh when they walk.
norb1937 1 year ago
she made a very good point and anyone that thinks guns should be illegal then get the fuck out of America because there here to stay
p6a9u1l42 1 year ago
It's just common sense that the more gun control there is, the less incidents like this are going to happen. I'm from England and yesterday in Cumbria a taxi driver went mad and killed 12 people, this is the worst example of gun violence in the UK since the Dunblane massacre in 1996 (also carried by out a man with a gun licence).
22 people were killed in this Texas restaurant, how many similar incidents have happened in America since this one? A hell of lot more than 2 that's for sure.
graemeoliver84 1 year ago
@graemeoliver84 ya and if everyone else had a gun they would have shot that dumb ass down in 2 seconds so shut the fuck up you dont know shit ya some people kill people so what if someone kills someone with a knife your going to make knives illegal?
p6a9u1l42 1 year ago
@p6a9u1l42 People like you just aren't worth speaking to.
graemeoliver84 1 year ago
@graemeoliver84 Its not JUST COMMON SENSE. Its much more complicated than that. You think criminals or madmen are gonna care about anti gun laws? Most of them DON'T EVEN BUY THEIR GUNS!!!! If they break the law when it comes to obtaining a firearm WITHOUT gun laws, what makes you think they are gonna turn it over.
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
@TheGreatRL That argument is over. You can hit that dead straw man as much as you want, you are not achieving anything. Nobody is suggesting that gun laws will take guns out of the hands of dedicated career criminals. Nobody ever did. Stop trying to make a hundred lame arguments, one excellent one will suffice, and she gave it in that video.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@MartinJWillett First of all, look at the guy I am replying to. That IS what he is suggesting. Second of all, If thats not the point of gun control, then WHY HAVE IT?
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
@TheGreatRL The point is to reduce the number of guns in circulation to reduce gun accidents and incidents in which people who were not up to that point criminally minded flip and resort to shooting to resolve their issues. That's their strongest argument. It's good, but not good enough. Stop trying to win every point, you don't need to, the case against gun control is sound and does not depend on their every argument being poor.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@MartinJWillett "The point is to reduce the number of guns in circulation to reduce gun accidents and incidents in which people who were not up to that point criminally minded flip and resort to shooting to resolve their issues"
So basically you are saying good citizens become criminals because of guns??? Wow. You officially have no right saying ANYONE'S argument is weak.
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
@TheGreatRL No I'm not. Guns cannot stop people becoming crazy can they? If people who own guns become crazy they become crazy people who already own guns. This is a regrettable situation. Trust me on this point. It is. Nobody has the capacity to tell who might flip if bad things happen to them or who will just become less stable anyway. It is inevitable that some people (whether they own guns or not) will go crazy, if they own guns this is worse than if they don't. This is not rocket science.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@MartinJWillett "if they own guns this is worse than if they don't. This is not rocket science" ITS NOT THAT SIMPLE!!!! Does this have to be beat into your head? If you want to take away good citizens guns because they might go crazy, then you might as well take away their cars, shoes, and knives too because those are more responsible for deaths than guns. When someone goes crazy, you have a gun to protect you. When a criminal tries to harm you, you have a gun to protect you.
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
@TheGreatRL I am against gun control. But that does not mean that I have to find every argument used for gun control to be wrong in every detail. Why is this too hard to grasp? There wouldn't be a debate if one side was wrong about the logic of every step of every argument they use. They have a good point about people going crazy with guns: it is A Bad Thing. But it is not a sufficient argument to disarm everybody, not least because it makes people defenceless and therefore creates victims.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@MartinJWillett Wait a minute. You are against gun control yet you give arguments FOR gun control. You confuse the hell outta me. " But that does not mean that I have to find every argument used for gun control to be wrong in every detail. " Sure nobody HAS to find anything wrong with ANY argument, but anyone that wants to sound logical, will. In a nutshell, you are basically telling me not to try and sound right.
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
@TheGreatRL Not at all. If you are arguing that tigers are more fierce than lions you don't have to make out that lions get beaten up by mice and regularly get spooked by small beetles. You don't have to trash every aspect of the opposition's argument and deride them for putting it up, you just have to supply a minimum of one decent argument against them, which is easy. Don't make your life difficult and make yourself look stupid into the bargain.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@MartinJWillett "If you are arguing that tigers are more fierce than lions you don't have to make out that lions get beaten up by mice and regularly get spooked by small beetles" Do you seriously have no idea how ridiculous you sound? If you want to make a good argument, then yes that is necessary. " Don't make your life difficult and make yourself look stupid into the bargain" Its not difficult to call someone out when they make a bad point and sounding logical doesn't look stupid
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
@TheGreatRL Do you think that to argue that tigers are more fierce than lions you DO have to make out that lions are pussycats? You are arguing wrong if you think that you have to combat every argument with a counter-argument no matter how lame and strained. You don't. You just need one unanswerable argument for your side. Yes it is a bad thing when people abuse legally owned guns. Admit it. It will not destroy your case at all. But making transparently stupid arguments will.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@MartinJWillett Right. But that isn't the ONLY thing I was stating. Look, I know where you are going with this. You're going for the whole "no sense in beating a dead horse" method, right? But there are just some gun control supporting idiots who just don't get it, so there ridiculous arguments and claims have to be countered so that they get it. It IS necessary sometimes but that wasn't the ONLY technique I was using.
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
@TheGreatRL I am pointing out that over-rehearsed arguments often end up with some of the stupidest arguments being trotted out.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@MartinJWillett Criminals are more afraid of armed victims rather than unarmed victims. You can agree or disagree all you want but one thing that is not debatable is that "ITS NOT THAT SIMPLE"
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
@graemeoliver84 Nonsense. There has been gun control and there has just been another incident, with a shotgun. Nobody is going to ban people from owning double barrelled shotguns and cars, which is what allowed this incident to happen. You don't get mass killings in places where there are armed people. They happen where there are no guns. Where guns are forbidden, so the only person with a gun is the nutter, protected by the gun laws until his suicide-by-cop arrives on cue.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@MartinJWillett The statistics speaks for themselves, the US has about 100 times more gun-related deaths than the UK. Americans belief in their right to have arms is more about culture than logic.
graemeoliver84 1 year ago
@graemeoliver84 Correct. They have a gun-owning and gun-using culture and they want to keep it, and being a democracy they have a good chance of doing so. I won't stand for ignorant claims on either side saying the other is crazy. I don't know which I respect less, ignorant yanks telling me my government is going to murder me after disarming me or British people saying all Americans are gun-totting murderous lunatics.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@MartinJWillett
LOL. Ignorant yanks? The fact that you buy the gun control lies tells me who is really ignorant. You
SexyArcanine666 1 year ago
@SexyArcanine666 I am not all Britons. You are not all Americans. Are you with me so far? This might take some time. Some Americans are ignorant yanks (all Americans are yanks, some are ignorant). I do not "buy gun control". I support the right for people in a free country to own guns, but not every weapon system imaginable. Because I support the right to own guns it does not follow that I agree with every pro gun argument and dismiss every gun control argument. This is because I am not stupid.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@graemeoliver84 Are you serious? The US is much more populous and has much more criminals. And are you so illogical to the point where you think that criminals are just gonna hand over their guns and not get another one? Gun control only disarms law abiding citizens and their right to protection.
TheGreatRL 1 year ago 11
Yeah, *every lunatic* should be allowed to carry guns so that next time a madman storms into your cafe and start executing people, you will be able pull out your magnum, shoot the guy, look at your anti-gun friend and as you blow the barrel say "see, I told'ya".
misium 1 year ago
@misium anti gun laws don't have effect on madmen or criminals dude
TheGreatRL 1 year ago
@misium Why would a madman expect to be able to kill a group of people who may be armed? You didn't get spree killings in the Wild West. How is it "going out in a blaze of glory" to burst into a crowed restaurant, fire three shots and then have half of the back of your head blown off by a fat man who lives in his parent's basement? Spree killings require unarmed/disarmed victims.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
@MartinJWillett Because a madman is _mad_. I am not sure how life was like in the wild west, but somehow I think there was quite a lot of shootouts and sprees. It's not the best commercial for gun safety.
misium 1 year ago
@misium I don't remember any tales of people walking into bars and coldly shooting people at random, because they'd be dead within three seconds if they tried.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
She does sound convincing
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
I remember watching a Michael Moore movie where he said Canada is so safe, no one even locks their doors. He said it was because of gun control. I then found another statistic that said the country with the highest reported rape was Canada.
Irony?
GuitarHeroPhenomSux 1 year ago
@GuitarHeroPhenomSux I thought that was brazil or another south american country?
sociopathpsych 1 year ago
@sociopathpsych, Nope. Read it again since I said this.
GuitarHeroPhenomSux 1 year ago
@GuitarHeroPhenomSux Reported rape statistics depend upon women expecting a sympathetic hearing. Rape is under-reported to a massive degree. Where women are confident that the police will handle the complaint well and stand a good chance of securing a prosecution - where they are actively combating rape - there will ironically be more rape reported. Contrast with Saudi Arabia where victims expect to be treated as adulteresses and stoned unless they have reliable witnesses, reported rape is low.
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ K0252
Actually I got that from this conversation: Ko252 @MrRustyt2011 That is an invalid claim. The problem with other weapons is that they are far from as effective, as a gun. And criminals? Well. they will always better weapon than the average joe, or do you suggest everyone to go around with ak47 and bazookaes?
catylist666 1 year ago
@ K0252
Just because some people are criminals does not mean they are better at firing a weapon than a normal law abiding citizen or more dangerous at that. I think you need to read or just go out and experience the world more and stop basing your opinionated non-sense on just plain stereotypes.
catylist666 1 year ago
@catylist666 I have never implied that criminals are better to fire. where did you get that? Read or just go experience? I always do, and always will. I would prefer you to stop being a hypocrite, and follow your own advice.
Ko252 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ko252 I also found it entertaining at the part when you said "And why shouldnt it be aloud to carry around bazookaes, sword, ak47, knives and poinsoned daggers?". LoL. Are you serious?
I think your one of the reasons why the goverment is contemplating on more strict gun control. Cut back on the video games kid. Go out and play kickball.
catylist666 1 year ago
@ Ko252
Very entertaining argument with binkten. So you implied that if/when your face to face with a gunman you could defend yourself without the means of a gun. LoL. Ok. I think you need to lay off the Steven Seagal movies.
catylist666 1 year ago
@catylist666 I didnt imply anything, I stated that, face to face with a gunman, there are other way to protect oneself. Within 21 feet, a gunman has a disadvantage, and as close you are, this disadvatange increase. With greater space, I would rather prefer to run. And steven seagal? I could very much damage to a gunman with a rock.
Ko252 1 year ago
We are long overdue for a revolution!! The democrats and republicans are one party with two wings. This is not a two party system and has never been! When the government stops representing the people and republic it is our duty to overthrow it!! VIVA LA REVOLUTION!
manicmartyr 1 year ago
Disarmament is a precursor to Genocide...
Hitler...
Stalin...
Mao...
SilverShieldGrp 1 year ago 3
@SilverShieldGrp No, inability to change oneselves mindset, and arrogancy is the reason.
Ko252 1 year ago
@SilverShieldGrp
I don't get it. The treaty of Versailles (the treaty that forced disarmament on Germany after WW1) was an contributing factor to why Hitler wanted to kill the Jews?
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
Comment removed
andyandymax 1 year ago
@SilverShieldGrp Interesting idea. Pure bollocks though. After Hitler began systematic mistreatment of the Jews he liberalized the gun laws. Just in case you don't know the word liberalized means made them freer. The only gun control measure Hitler enacted was to make the possession of pistols and rifles by the general mass of citizens easier. That's Hitler, the Nazi leader who regularly rode around in the back of an open-topped car. That's not the message the NRA likes to give, is it?
MartinJWillett 1 year ago
If there was no such thing as a gun, he couldn't have shot your parents, could he? What else was he going to do, noogie them to death? Look at how few Brits are killed in this manner ever year, they don't have guns, the police don't even carry guns!!
RedVynil 2 years ago
@RedVynil the gun isnt the issue. if someone wants to kill, they will do it regardless of the tool they use. knife, gun, garotte wire, strangulation etc. the reason strict gun control doesnt work is that it has no affect on criminals. they will get them somehow if they want them. all it does is make it harder for law abiding citizens to use them.
MrRustyt2011 2 years ago
@MrRustyt2011 That is an invalid claim. The problem with other weapons is that they are far from as effective, as a gun. And criminals? Well. they will always better weapon than the average joe, or do you suggest everyone to go around with ak47 and bazookaes?
Ko252 1 year ago
@Ko252 actually, as it i based on fact, it is not. In washington d.c there was a gun ban that was lifted a few years back. it was enacted in 1976, and incidentally the murder rate was 55% higher after the ban. in kennesaw georgia it is mandatory for the head of house to own a firearm. in 1982 after the law went into affect, crime dropped 74% in the 1st year and continued to drop.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@MrRustyt2011 Well, in scandinavia it is inhibited to carry firearms, and we have less murder than you guys, so what is your case?
Ko252 1 year ago
@Ko252 also your population is much smaller, which would affect the # of murders. This is america, where we have the freedom to own a gun. without that ability, the american population would be at greater risk because so many guns are already in circulation that criminals would always have them. and once the government takes away your gun rights, soon all your other freedoms follow. its taking away your ability to defend yourself
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@MrRustyt2011 Yes, it is smaller, but if look per cent wise, we still have less gun related murders. The solution to many gun in circulation, is not to increase the gun in circulation. The government take away your gun right? Well, you have already lost the right to trial, if the government suspects you to aid terrorism, with or without proof, and you're crying out loud because of gun control?`Wow
Ko252 1 year ago
@Ko252 the government does not have the power to decide if guns should be produced or sold. its none of their business. yes, im more upset over gun control because it affects far more people. and usually the CIA has it right about whos a terrorist. and its not all about gun rights, its freedom in general. at every turn the gov. is restricting freedom more and more. thats why its important to take a stand for freedoms like these.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@MrRustyt2011 No, the gover dont have power to deceide wheather produced or not, but regarding sold? yes, it has. Your next point is far from it: You have lost the cornerstone of every single society, and far more people can be affected by this, if the govern wants to, namely a fair trial, a right to meet your accuser, etc. That is far more severe than guncontrol, 1.you can get guns on the blackmarked as well 2. you can use other weapons. What if you go to jail, for no reason, and havnt trial?
Ko252 1 year ago
@Ko252 they do not need to control wether guns are sold as it is a citizens right in this society to buy one. i agree, a fair trial if falsely accused is important. if you are a murdering terrorist, sure, you should still have a trial. im sure some probably havent, but hey there still gonna get punished. if the gov. suspects you to aid terrorism, then you probably did aid it. the CIA is very good at what they do.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@MrRustyt2011 Of course there must be a control over who gets the gun. Is it okey if children do too? What about other weapons, like chemical weapons? Or explosive? Should everyone be able to buy such? A fair trial is an important cornerstone in EVERY democratic society, regardless of what you are. Lets say the CIA suspect guys like you, for gun control, to aid terrorism, is that a good enough excuse to jail you in guantanamo for rest of your life without a trial?
Ko252 1 year ago
@Ko252 children having guns is beside the point: of course kids shouldnt have them, thats not what i said. guns are not biological weapons or explosives, that has no relevancy to this argument. A fair trial is very important, you are correct. supporting gun ownership has nothing to do with inciting terror and being a terrorist, but i know what you mean. maybe the gov. will one day consider us terrorists. if that is so, then we will again have to overthrow an oppressive government.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@MrRustyt2011 One way to overthrow an oppresive govern is to start early, with confronting the govern with the changes, like the one that you are guilty until proven otherwise, if they suspects you of terrorism, etc.
Ko252 1 year ago
@Ko252 exactly. that and standing firm on the issue of gun rights. and anything else they try to take away from us. thats why i am supporting it now. we are confronting the gov. now
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@MrRustyt2011 Gun control doesnt mean a shit, if you loose the right to free trial, as you have. Or the right to meet your accuser. Or to be unguilty until proven otherwise. Why dont fight for that? That is far more important than any gun control
Ko252 1 year ago
@Ko252 I havent lost the right to a fair trial. if i commit a crime, i still get a fair trial and get to meet my accuser. i understand the point you are trying to make, but refrain from commenting on things you dont know the whole story on. if someone in the US is suspected of terrorism, then they have some kind of a connection to it. thats why EVERYONE else is isnt worried about it, because honest citizens are not going to be accused of having terrorist activities.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@Ko252 I havent lost the right to a fair trial. if i commit a crime, i still get a fair trial and get to meet my accuser. i understand the point you are trying to make, but refrain from commenting on things you dont know the whole story on. if someone in the US is suspected of terrorism, then they have some kind of a connection to it. thats why EVERYONE else is isnt worried about it, because honest citizens are not going to be accused of having terrorist activities.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@Ko252 I havent lost the right to a fair trial. if i commit a crime, i still get a fair trial and get to meet my accuser. i understand the point you are trying to make, but refrain from commenting on things you dont know the whole story on. if someone in the US is suspected of terrorism, then they have some kind of a connection to it. thats why EVERYONE else is isnt worried about it, because honest citizens are not going to be accused of having terrorist activities.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@Ko252 I havent lost the right to a fair trial. if i commit a crime, i still get a fair trial and get to meet my accuser. i understand the point you are trying to make, but refrain from commenting on things you dont know the whole story on. if someone in the US is suspected of terrorism, then they have some kind of a connection to it. thats why EVERYONE else is isnt worried about it, because honest citizens are not going to be accused of having terrorist activities.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@MrRustyt2011 The argument you used on guns can be used on biological weapons and explosives, so what is the difference?
Ko252 1 year ago
@Ko252 I dont see how. can you argue that a civilian can safely utilize biological weapons for self defense? if you are in a self defense situation and you are the victim, you are not going to be 300 meters from your adversary. most confrontations involving self defense are within 20 feet. a gun is used every 13 seconds in defense against a criminal in the US. in over half of the situations where a gun is used for defense, there are 2 or more attackers.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@Ko252 I dont see how. can you argue that a civilian can safely utilize biological weapons for self defense? if you are in a self defense situation and you are the victim, you are not going to be 300 meters from your adversary. most confrontations involving self defense are within 20 feet. a gun is used every 13 seconds in defense against a criminal in the US. in over half of the situations where a gun is used for defense, there are 2 or more attackers.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@Ko252 I dont see how. can you argue that a civilian can safely utilize biological weapons for self defense? if you are in a self defense situation and you are the victim, you are not going to be 300 meters from your adversary. most confrontations involving self defense are within 20 feet. a gun is used every 13 seconds in defense against a criminal in the US. in over half of the situations where a gun is used for defense, there are 2 or more attackers.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@Ko252 I dont see how. can you argue that a civilian can safely utilize biological weapons for self defense? if you are in a self defense situation and you are the victim, you are not going to be 300 meters from your adversary. most confrontations involving self defense are within 20 feet. a gun is used every 13 seconds in defense against a criminal in the US. in over half of the situations where a gun is used for defense, there are 2 or more attackers.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@Ko252 it is impossible to utilize biological weapons and explosives as a self defense measure in a confrontation with a criminal. do you really think you could hold your own, unarmed, against 2 or more attackers, with at least one of them possessing a firearm? to think so would be delusional.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@MrRustyt2011 Ever heard about granate? That is explosive, and can very well be used in self defense. With two attackers with gun, you will also have problems, even though you have a gun yourself. And who said, I can use other weapons in that situation?
Ko252 1 year ago
@Ko252 you mean a grenade? sure you could use it, if you are 15 meters away from your attackers as a grenade has a 5 meter kill radius and a 15 meter casualty radius. as i previously mentioned, most situations where you need to defend yourself are within 20 feet, there is no way you could use a grenade in that situation. also, why would i rather carry a grenade than a gun? im not trying to desintigrate my assailant, merely deter them.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@Ko252 you said that my argument for guns could be applied to explosives and biological weapons. well, can you use either of those weapons for self defense? no, not safely without injuring yourself. thats the whole point of why you would carry a gun. in most cases, when a gun is fired in self defense the criminal is never even hit, but just firing the gun near them is enough to scare most criminals off. i dont want to kill my assailant if it can be avoided.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@MrRustyt2011 Of course it can. A hand granade is a explosice, do you really think that cant be used in self defense? That also goes to biological weapons, since you can call an upcomming war, self defense also. If you carry a knifte, you often dont stab the criminal, so that should be alloud to. Bombs as well. Why dont strap yourself with one, if they try anything, you treatens to blow yourself up. You want, but want take that chance.
Ko252 1 year ago
@Ko252 you misunderstand. i am talking about a situation coming from a restaurant, in a store, in your home etc. when you might need to defend yourself. in that instance, a gun is the best protection. how could you possibly use a grenade to protect yourself in such close quarters. the objective isnt to walk around loaded to the teeth with weapons. its to be as safe and secure as possible. why carry grenades around when its impractical and a gun can do the job.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@MrRustyt2011 That is just bs, and pardon my french. Gun is not always the best defence. In close range, gun is almost as dangerous for yourself, as it is for the people around you, especially if it is a struggle. Knife is way better. Why carry gun, when running away, or using stones can do the job?
Ko252 1 year ago
@Ko252 how is it dangerous to yourself to have a gun? so youre saying that in the process of being attacked, you pulling out a gun and shooting your assailant is somehow dangerous to you? seems like its more dangerous to your attacker. im sure things like stones can be useful, you can kill someone with anything. but there is no denying that a gun has been and is the most effective weapon to use against criminals.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@Ko252 statistics on assaults in the US show that out of all the crimes that have been stopped or prevented, a gun was the means of self defense in 70% of the situations.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@Ko252 also, use of explosives or biological weapons can have unintended consequences. innocent people around you could be killed and wounded by those methods. they are uncontrollable and unpredictable. furthermore, i am trying to avoid harm to myself, why would i use a device that would hurt myself as well. use of those methods in those situations would certainly not be beneficial to me. you are talking in extremes and hyperbole, neither of which helps your argument.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@MrRustyt2011 Unintended consequences? How? the military use it, and they seems to know how it works. I can agree with biological weapons being more unpredictable, but granade? Come on, both of us know that isnt correct. A gun can hurt you too.
Ko252 1 year ago
@Ko252 sure, a combat zone has a few slight differences than here at home. you cant just lob a grenade at someone here. im talking about legal ways to defend yourself, grenades are illegal for civilian use. besides, its overkill for use in a self defense situation. saying that instead of using a gun, you would use a grenade to defend yourself is like saying that since you get a splinter in your finger, you are going to cut your arm off. its just as unneccassary.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@MrRustyt2011 So you think that all self defence situations are alike? you can never think of a situation where a granade can be used as self defence?
Ko252 1 year ago
@Ko252 here you go again taking things out of context. i said that in a self defense situation in your house, in a dark alley, as you exit a restaurant etc., you cant use a grenade as self defense. which is true. now if you want to interpret self defense as on a battlefield, then yes, it can be self defense. but thats war. an average citizen cannot safely utilize a grenade in self defense situations on the homefront. a gun is much more controllable, and thus a better choice.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@Ko252 simple solution: dont be in a position where you could be a terror suspect. keep a clean nose, follow the law, dont research how to make bombs and finding local terrorist organizations. as for the black market, if guns are outlawed, and criminals get them from the black market, what kind of sense does it make to say that if law abiding citizens want a gun they have to break the law to get one? it defeats the purpose. all that does is hurt those that follow the law.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@MrRustyt2011 Who decide what "terror" is? Lets say the CIA and government thinks that everybody support abortion of the gun control, is a terror trait, since they have the possibility to rush down the government? Then what? Did you forget what the tea party was for the British? A terror attack. What kind of sense? You dont cure a disease, to get infected more and more. The gun control, should therefore also ban the blackmarked, and the police then have a job to do.
Ko252 1 year ago
@Ko252 you make a good point here, and this is something that all americans should beware of. the gov. could very well consider us terrorists in the future. people advocating guns might be called "terrorists" and thats when there will be another revolution: when the US gov. no longer distinguishes between friend and foe, and citizens lose their rights and liberties. thats why i fight for my rights now, while there is still a chance and we are not considered enemies of the state.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@Ko252 no, not everyone has to have an AK, but a citizen should have the freedom to own a firearm if they choose to. if a criminal knows that a person has a firearm they are extremely unlikey to assault them. now those against guns, they can choose to not have them. if you are so against them, then the next time someone shoots up your walmart or attacks and muggs you, we shall not interfere as gun use is against your wishes. i kid, as i would do my duty as a citizen and for everyones safety
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@MrRustyt2011 the problem with everyone carrying a gun, is that one crazy person is enough to release, and that not everyone is stable enough to carry one. I am not American, and here is it quite hard to get a gun, and therefore we have never any columbine or shooting at walmart, etc
Ko252 1 year ago
@Ko252 you are right, there are crazy people out there. but if someone has their mind set on doing something, you cannot deter them, they will do it. I can appreciate the statistics of where you are, as it is more peaceful there. but that is exactly the reason it is a benefit here. if citizens cannot carry guns legally, criminals will still carry anyway. therefore, having the ability to carry for defense is a huge benefit.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@Ko252 remember, you are safer having us around than not, as we are the true first response team. by the time police arrive, its too late. who is going to stop the psychopath mowing people down in your local supermarket besides us?
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@MrRustyt2011 What if any of you is a psychpath?
Ko252 1 year ago
well, most of us are sane, but just because there are a few crazies, that shouldnt prohibit us from ownership. it all comes down to this: gun prohibition may work for you all in scandinavia, but it doesnt work here. it is not a cure all for gun related murders. it has been proven that exercising gun rights here reduces crime and murders. this is the land of the free after all.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@MrRustyt2011 Yes, it should, if there is no 100% secure way to know who of you is or can become crazy with a gun. How can you know that it doesnt work there? I bet the number (per cent wise) in the old west was higher than it is today. No, it is not a cure, but it will make it more difficult to gain a gun. Exercise gun rights? That bs. Land of free? hahahah. Is that the same country that opened guantanamo? And can arrest people without them having any fair trial?
Ko252 1 year ago
@Ko252 you are*
Ko252 1 year ago
@Ko252 you are entitled to your opinion, but i dont see why you care as you are in scandinavia. you do not have to live with us. i know it doesnt work here because the #'s prove it. whenever guns have been prohibited here, crime has gone up. yes, gun rights. its not too hard to comprehend, we want the ability to defend ourselves with a gun. i dont see how gitmo bay is relevant. and i know, the U.S. is corrupt. but there are still many of us that fight for the real america
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@Ko252
Would you rather they go unarmed? I would rather have a 9mm with me than nothing If I ever had to come face to face with a gunman. When you give RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE weapons they're a liability . Take Virginia tech for example. The police took 12 minutes to get there. Do you know how long it would have lasted if a teacher had been carrying a gun? less than 12 seconds.
binkten 1 year ago
@binkten I know how to defend myself without a gun. And why shouldnt it be aloud to carry around bazookaes, sword, ak47, knives and poinsoned daggers? Your same arguments can be used about these. Who will deceide whom is responsible? And how can you ever know that this person will always that resposible? What kind of restrictions do you have to prevent crazy persons to get a hand on a weapon? Can you stop these "responsible" people to fire an arm, if they are drunk, very angry etc?
Ko252 1 year ago
@RedVynil for example, in virginia they just passed a bill that allows firearms into etsablishments serving alcohol, thank god. because where do criminals and robbers attack? they wouldnt wait outside a mcdonalds for their prey. they wait in dark parking lots of red lobster and nice restaurants, for targets that have more money and valuables. it just makes sense.
MrRustyt2011 2 years ago
Cool story bro.
HeretixAevum 2 years ago
"owning a gun creates more sorrow"?
That's lol-able. Owning a gun creates happiness!
PadraikKasier 2 years ago 2
Really? How do you explain the fact that most people that owns a gun end up hurting them selves or a loved one instead of a would be burgular?
How do you explain the fact that the US have over 10.000 gun related deaths every year while most countries in Europe barely exceed a couple of hundred?
What is it about these guns that you guys love so much?
feonor26 2 years ago
I'm not trying to have a go at you americans, I'm just curious in understanding why you insist on owning and carrying a gun?
feonor26 2 years ago
Guns are A) fun B) fun C) FUN!!!, D) highly useful, and D) a constitutional, utilitarian, natural, god-given right.
I'm curious about your facts though. I do not doubt their truthfulness, but they are very vague.
Does "gun-related deaths" differentiate between crime-related, suicide-related, and accident-related deaths? No offense, but I wouldn't be surprised if the actual criminal business accounted for most of the difference.
I understand that it's not an insult. :)
PadraikKasier 2 years ago
Don't think they differentiate on that no.
Ok, I think you're kidding a bit...but I do believe many has this attitude that guns are FUN! :P
Yes alright, I enjoy shooting a gun at the range as any other...but having respect for the weapon is crucial. A gun should have the same status as a hammer. They are both a tool, should be used as a tool and can be deadly in the wrong hands. I'm horrified when I read about little kids finding their dads unlocked loaded gun!
feonor26 2 years ago
Which is why gun SAFETY should be emphasized rather than just banning them outright.
PadraikKasier 2 years ago
Mhm...but is the woman in this video promoting gun safety?
feonor26 2 years ago
gun safety is not an issue here. Stupid gun bans fucked her over.
GW728917 2 years ago
@feonor26 well take a look at norway during WWII, the civilians didnt have any firearms and the nazis were able to take norway with little resistance. if they had had guns, it would be a different story. if during the US revolutionary war, civilians hadnt had guns, there is no way we would have won.
MrRustyt2011 1 year ago
@MrRustyt2011 What good would it do it all the civilians had firearms? None of them had army training or were very organized. Those who were took to the hills or went to training in the UK for the resistance fighting and did an heroic job on that. The germans were a highly trained, diciplined and a very organized army. If any civilians would have tried to use a gun on them, they would have been slaughtered!
feonor26 1 year ago
@MrRustyt2011 The US indepence war happened 100s of years ago when the world and your country was very different. The US was very young and didn't even have a proper infrastructure. Today you have the largest army in the world which guaranties your country's safety. Who's going to invade you? Canada?
feonor26 1 year ago
This is womans thinking is backwards and dumb. She's asking why she wasn't allowed to carry with her a gun so she could take out the shooter. But that's totally wrong direction to go.
Instead of asking why she wasn't allowed to carry a gun in public, people should ask why guns are so easy for everyone to get hold of? Handing out guns to everyone is not the solution and is IMHO to be asking for trouble.
Your right to carry a gun was maybe valid 200 years ago with the indians etc...times change
feonor26 2 years ago
so tyranical governments dont exist anymore? times change right? people have no guns only the government does. is that your solution to less murders in this country?
scienceatheism 2 years ago
What does suddenly tyranical governments got to do with anything? Are you suggesting that you have a tyranical government? As far as I know, you are a democracy, and the power of the people is and should be in the ballot not in arms. There is no reason what so ever that anyone else than the police and army should have weapons. Your paranoia of the government killing you all if you don't have a weapon is a stupid exchuse made by gun nuts who refuse realize that owning a gun creates more sorrow!
feonor26 2 years ago
no we are actually a republic. look up democracy and what it means. democracy would mean that we would have to vote for every fucking little thing. like can i take a shit in my house lets vote on it kind of deal. so we are a republic. but the idea of the second amendment is to make sure that the government fears its people not the people fearing its government. thats all it is its not paranoia. its reassurance.
scienceatheism 2 years ago
Alright, but you do have democratic elections of government...can we agree on that?! THAT is where your government (and all other democratic governments) should fear their people. Not in the threat of making armed revolutions, but in the threat of removing them from power by one stroke of the pen, so I believe you have misunderstood the fear concept there.
A government is there to govern the peace and manage everything practical a society needs. Peace is harder to govern if everyone owns a gun
feonor26 2 years ago
how do you remove someone from power that refuses to get out and has the military on there side??? peace is harder to govern if there are people who refuse to follow the law. not because of guns. but because of the outlaw complex where people refuse to listen to a higher authority.
scienceatheism 2 years ago
Well, now you are laying out the worst case scenario with a totalitarian government taking power by a coup. Luckily I don't think the US is in that situation, but if you were I don't think a bunch of unorganized para-military civilians with guns would be any match to a trained military force. The best way a people can insure its rights is for every generation to fight for their democracy and their right to vote. Don't ever let too much power be divided over too few people.
feonor26 2 years ago
just because you don't think that could happen don't mean it wont. why did America separate from Britain in the first place? because of high taxes and the tyrannical injustice felt in the colonies. we as a young country don't want to repeat such an atrocity. who has the power when the government has the guns? and militia men won against the red coat british army. most just farmers. training can only go so far.
scienceatheism 2 years ago
Don' know where my previous comment went...
My point is that again, you can't look at today with 17th century eyes. Back then only a selected few had the power to vote and the governments weren't as pressured by media and public opinion. The best way to ensure your and our freedom is to make sure that the power lies with the people through the right to vote. If the power is shared among too few people, you will have a tyrannical government. Look up Tony Benn, he puts the democracy tern very well
feonor26 2 years ago
@feonor26 yes but to forget the past just because its the past is a mistake and a mistake that has been made in the past. voice can easily be silenced by a gun. so to say public opinion matters will make sure that the government doesnt turn on its people is just false.
scienceatheism 2 years ago
I find your attitude disturbing. Voilence will always breed more voilence. The fact that you would rather swear to a gun than taking care of the democracy is frightening. You guys have to open your eyes and realize that GUNS KILL PEOPLE!!!
feonor26 2 years ago
@feonor26 i find your attitude disconcerning. violence is the world. people in it are naturally violent. we will always find a way to kill each other. if it isnt guns its something else. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!!!
scienceatheism 2 years ago
Right, so because we are "naturally voilent" we should just give up on the fight against voilence? Lets just bring in totalt anarchy right away, it's in our nature to kill eachother anyways!
feonor26 2 years ago
@scienceatheism then every country should have to they right to have the h-bomb.
Ko252 1 year ago
@Ko252 yes. as long as they dont use it. whats the big deal?
scienceatheism 1 year ago
@feonor26 quiet being an idiot and look at our history before guns was invented did we not still kill each other? did we not go to war for frivilous things? people say its the 21st century blah blah blah. but when are they going to open there eyes and realize that human nature does not change, only the times and technology.
scienceatheism 2 years ago
she's hot
shadowvowed187 2 years ago
Retro hot...
SilverShieldGrp 2 years ago
False.
Plain hot.
God bless her for defending our rights. On a related side note, I would hit that like the fist of an angry god.
dreauxboy 2 years ago
the only thing gun control laws do is make it harder for you to defend yourself, because the people who want to hurt you don't care about gun laws.
HurfDurfAlive 2 years ago
GUNS dont KILL people, people KILL people !! and as gothgirl16 sed if thay bann guns we the responsable people will be the only one with out self defence.
hereforareasonunown 2 years ago
If GUNS kill PEOPLE...
Then PENCILS misspell WORDS...
SilverShieldGrp 2 years ago
James Brady is one of the worst people in the country. The blood of the hands of the millions killed by gun control laws is on the hand of James Brady and everyone who supports gun control.
HeadTater 2 years ago
I own guns, hell I love guns they are a complete marvel to our species. But they also show the stupidity... Sure in this one case (among many few) it could've worked out in her favor. But just as in P&T's death sentence episode You're taking a life. Gun deaths high in America why, our laws. Low in other countries like Europe.. more strict gun laws. Guns don't kill and people like this make the fact more correct that People Kill people.
Brewhahh 2 years ago
@Brewhahh
Giving people more ways to kill each other is not the answer.
Brewhahh 2 years ago
Giving people the means to defend themselves and protect themselves from a tyrannical government IS the answer.
Disarmament is the precursor to Genocide.
SilverShieldGrp 2 years ago
US has the largest land force on earth. And Navy. And AirForce. US has the largest declared nuclear arsenal. US has the largest undeclared nuclear arsenal on the planet. What are you defending yourself from with your piece of shit illegal pistol?
WICHEESE1 2 years ago
I was in the Marine Infantry for seven years and I know wha