There is no equivalency. Especially when we get into the idea of culture. You are ignoring the effects of the few hundred years prior to the end of slavery.
I don’t know who would say we shouldn’t count them. But using that count to prove that “guns are bad, mmmkay?” is nonsense. No, some people are bad, and law abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves.
Yeah, a shillelagh is probably not what I should carry. I’ll just get a blackthorn “walking stick,” because, you know, my knee bothers me sometimes. I understand that if I fight back at all I’m going to prison, but that’s better than letting something happen to my wife.
I’ve been to England twice, actually every 15 years, I was 9, then 24, now 39. Will be staying mostly in small towns, it seemed safer than most of the places I have lived and worked over here. Have family friends who are getting older, and in a few years they won’t be able to host us.
Let’s see: Deerfield Illinois and the great state of Massachusetts. Where do these people come from, especially all those Constitutional scholars ? I am glad Massachusetts is telling me how to understand the Constitution, because, God knows, I am just a poor , misguided fool.
This person comes from the federal bench - it’s a federal judge.
Someone on this thread said that.
Yeah, I think it was me. Which is a stupid way of putting it, I do that plenty. Yet my point was and still is that the fact that bad people do bad things with firearms is no reason to disarm law abiding citizens.
Further, this thread was supposed to be a place to share solutions, but it’s turned into the usual shit show. If you posted a solution that I missed, please share it again, and maybe we can have an intelligent discussion about your ideas.
What I think is interesting is that ninnies like david hogg actually have common ground with most law abiding gun owners. They are afraid of someone attacking them.
The difference is Gun owners simply want to be able to protect themselves in the event that something happens, while the former is content with being helpless.
I’d be curious to know the stats on people committing crimes with guns acquired with on the spot background checks vs. applying for a permit to purchase.
In MN, you can apply for a permit, or you can but a gun on the spot and the FFL phones in your background check right there.
Potential improvement solution:
If we made it so you could only buy a firearm after having your permit to purchase, I wonder if/how this could reduce crimes committed with lawfully acquired guns. Does applying for a permit allow for a more thorough background check process? I’m speculating that someone like the fl shooter wouldn’t be willling to apply for a permit to purchase due to his mental health issues.
1 Like
I think all of the gun violence we have, be it mass shootings or gang/drug/inner city related, as well as violence in general and things like our opioid epidemic, are the price we are paying for not having a soul. A nation’s greatness is measured by more than the strength of its economy and military.
Hogg’s father has a gun in the house. His issue is with so called assault rifles, not guns.
I don’t think we have a lack of a soul at all. I work in the worst neighborhood of a pretty shitty city. The amount of assistance and charity that our nation’s poor receive is astounding. The shittiest (litterally) houses I go into all have a big screen TV and a they all have smartphones.
Meanwhile there is garbage piled waste deep in the kitchen, and trash is collected, at no cost to them, every Tuesday. All they have to do is put it in the can that the city gave them, and roll it 30 feet to the curb.
What were your solutions to gun violence, again?
That isn’t charity; it’s hush money. It’s maintaining the status quo.
I gave my solution: Americans need to stop being angry and miserable. Happy people don’t kill other people.
That’s a nonsensical solution. It’s like saying that everyone should just drive safer so we could do away with seatbelts and airbags.
1 Like
My solution is
Coupled with much harsher penalties for violent crimes. All laws are about controlling the risk/reward dynamic.
We should spend less time on social media, less time eating, less time watching TV, less time drinking and more time reading, exercising, being outdoors and fishing.
End the war on drugs and provide care for the mentally ill.
1 Like
More platitudes.
Let’s say If I do all of that, and someone else doesn’t. One day, they, or their angry, resentful offspring, now grown to adulthood, want to rob me. I’m just not allowed to be armed to protect myself and my loved ones because, according to you “peace and love, man.”
There was a handicapped man in my district who was robbed one night by three young men armed with a ball peen hammer. He gave them his money, his phone and his car keys, everything he had, and they still beat him in the head with the hammer. They left him in the gutter, they thought dead, but only unconscious with a minor skull fracture and a concussion.
But according to you, and the British justice system, that man should not be allowed to carry the tools he could use for self defense?
1 Like
I agree with you 100% on ending the war on drugs. That solution will not lead to a utopia either, but it’s better than continuing with our present policy.
You are confusing things. What I’m recommending is not a replacement for guns but a way of living safely with guns.
Utopias, by definition, do not exist. Beware of anyone promising one because he is most likely trying to bring about totalitarianism.