‘What stands between us and what happened in London? Guns, guns, guns’

Certainly not our generous immigration policies...

 

yet we still have shootings hear that are not heroes slaying villains so nothing is different

 

Finally, a FULL LOGIC post!! What you said is based upon decent reason and not that myopic after-the-fact bravado many in this society are given to.

Guns are not the damned answer to as many things as people here often believe and/or imagine.

 

Well if they aren't the answer, what is the next best idea YOU have that would have saved this soldier?

 

Look at our society and actually prove me that 'firearms' are some kind of 'solution'.

Tell you what, I'm not buying that sh__.

 

In other words you don't even have a next best idea. Thanks that proves my point perfectly.

 

You look at society and never see the people, only the guns. You think guns are the problem, not people.

 

"making good people helpless won't make bad people harmless"....

and yet, the useful idiots....conditioned.....
march behind their totalitarian herder's unconstitutional efforts to disarm.

 

Did Americans having the right to have guns do anything to stop our latest Radical Muslim attack using pressure cookers?

Guns in themselves are not a magic button solution to security problems.

Nor is any of the silly appeasement and / or outreach efforts that the Lefties seem to put ALL faith in...

There isn't a one stop magic button solution to security, or human kind would have adopted it eons ago.

-

 

You are wrong.

And yes, I've talked about my views enough on here overall. I'll only say that firearms aren't the 'solution'.

Dealing with the politicians is where my energy will be focused from now on.

 

That proves nothing on your part.

You throw up the same old crappy ideas, promoting the status quo that has gotten us to where we are now... and I'm supposed to buy into the silly or insane notion that the BS you've already expressed is actually superior to what I'm still thinking-over? That's almost laughable!!

LOL!! Try selling that to the next fear-mongering-infected American. I'm not buying the idea that more armed citizens (and/or more powerful firearms) will solve a damned thing.

 

Apparently one of the terrorists had a gun. Thankfully he didn't use it.

Only the police and military need guns. I don't care about rights. I have the right to call everyone an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) but that doesn't mean that I need to do it.

Total disarmament can't happen soon enough.

 

Yeah, our laws might be what they are in this society; but the way some people want to go with firearms (more of them in the hands of citizens), is nothing but a sad trek toward lunacy.

 

I and many many others could manufacture a very effective fire arm from scratch in my garage in a matter of hours.

It is not possible to "Total Disarm" anyone or any society. It is foolish to even try.

Attempting to do so, can however, make overreaching government into tyrants.

-

 

I'm of the opinion "opportunists" will generally look for the path of least resistance to ply their trade. Can one open carry in Boston?

who ever claimed they were?

Pandering....unadulterated "feel good" political expedience. of the "they don't care about you, we do" variety.

again, no one has ever claimed that.

I see my "security" as an intimately personal affair.....Gubberment bureaucrats cannot "make me safe", and I don't expect them too...but they can, if given an inch, ultimately make it so I cannot make myself safer. which is unacceptably arrogant, elitist and authoritarian.

 

Probably. But it wouldn't likely be as effective (or numerous) as the killing machines the corporations can manufacture in mass.

Really, we are skating the edge of insanity, by proliferating as many firearms as we do in this society.

 

Nothing you've said here is "Wrong"

But we're in this thread to debate the premise put forth by the OP.

The premise is that Guns are what makes the difference between the nature, frequency and scope of Islamic Terrorist attacks in America compared to the UK.

I think the Premise the OP puts forth is deeply flawed. Guns, and ONLY Guns are not the magic button to fix our security problems.

You asked who is saying that,... well, the OP said it, and he's wrong!

-

 

As soon as all governments & criminals are disarmed, I'll be more than willing to give up my guns. Until you can figure out a way to complete that, the last thing I want to hear anyone say is 'I don't care about rights'. If you don't care about your rights, feel free to give them up whenever you want. When you begin to trample on mine, that's where I will have a problem.

 

My wife and I have defended ourselves with guns 3 times. You are free to express your beliefs and try to influence the government to pass laws you want, but I will try to defeat you with my very last breath. My wife would be dead if not for her being armed.

 

These guys would have done a lot more damage with guns.

 

Show me where a government figure said they don't trust citizens with guns. There is a clear breakdown of guns vs. weapons of mass killings or destruction.

But it's easier for the opposing party to just say, "they want to take all your guns" ...........(R)ight?

 

Trying to "debate" hyperbole is not a very effective use of one's time.

 

How did the terrorist have a gun? Seems he didn't give a rat about any "gun law".

 

Any weapon designed to kill somebody else should be outlawed ... because murder is illegal. Protect your right to life by discouraging others to buy, make, sell or use weapons designed to kill people.

Just three times, huh?

 

Well why would you push for more gun regulations then?
The only thing we know will happen when the government starts trying to limit access to certain weapons and accessories, is that everything in surplus starts flying off the shelf causing even more weapons proliferation.

It happened the same way in 1994 when President Clinton passed the Assault Weapons Ban ... and Assault Weapons and Pre-ban Magazines start selling like hotcakes.
The same thing happened after Sandy Hook when President Obama tried to pass more gun legislation (and failed) ... and weapons and ammo sold so fast the market still hasn't caught back up.

Some people just don't get it ... If you want to stop weapons proliferation, you have to stop making weapons ... Anything else you do with legislation just makes people buy more weapons.
Now if you want to go as far as trying to shut down production, or prohibiting citizens from owning firearms ... Well I am likewise not too sure you are aware of what you will get in return.
If attempted gun legislation is any indication of how utterly unsuccessful it is at stemming weapons proliferation ... Then it is safe to say that attempts to disarm the public would probably be just as disastrous.

I am still not convinced that more guns in London would have been as effective as a plethora of other changes in policies and initiatives though.