I have heard these kinds of insights when living overseas. Frankly, I'm tired of our gun-violence problem. "We are so sorry for your terrible tragedy. We are sad and we are confused and we can not help but ask ourselves "When will the Americans learn? When will it be enough?". I do not think any civilized countries understand you. You are not safe in your city streets, in your cinemas, your shopping centers or even your Halls of Government. But you fight to keep the guns in all these places. We watch in shock and horror at what happens every year, every month, every week and we feel so badly for you. We are in shock. Today we cried for you and embraced our children and we bowed our heads and were grateful that our children will never grow up in a dangerous country like America. I have lived in America. I have known people who have these very strong emotions about everyone needing to own a gun. They always say the same things. Some say you need guns to protect yourselves from each other. Do you feel safe? Will you arm your children too? How does this make sense to you? What will you do if you see someone with a gun? Will you shoot them? What if five of you have guns? Will all of you shoot? Are all of you trained so that you will never miss or hit an innocent person? What will you do when five people are shooting? Ten? Twenty? Because if your solution is to give every American a gun, this is what will eventually happen. In many of your cities and ghettos, it is like that now. Yet you remain sure the only answer is even less control over guns. You could also believe the solution to fires is to make sure everyone carries petrol. Many of you like to say that if guns are not allowed, only criminals will have them. This is true. In your country, if the man who shot the children had been caught on his way to the school, if the man had been caught on the way to the shopping mall, if the man had been caught on the way to the cinema, all would be let go. In a moment, an hour or a day. In my country, If any of those men had been caught on their way, they would be in jail for years. Because here, we put criminals away before they shoot people. It is a crime to have a gun in Tokyo. It is a crime to have a bullet in Tokyo. Our police know right away who is a criminal and that it will not be a waste time because the criminal will go free if arrested. This is why in our largest city of over thirteen million people, we have never had ten gun murders in a year. It is rare we have that many gun murders our whole country. You have how many people murdered with guns in your country every year? Ten times that? One hundred? Closer to one thousand times more gun murders. The other reason I have heard is you are afraid your own country would attack you. Do you really believe this? I heard over and over again, that your soldiers are mostly Republicans. Just like your gun owners. Do you really think your Republican soldiers would obey an order to shoot you all? And if they did, what good would your guns do against tanks and planes? The last thing I hear is that guns do not kill people. Many of us think it is a joke when we first hear it because even a small child knows better. If this man had walked into the school with his fists or a knife, he could not have killed twenty children. He might have killed one and that would be terrible. But people can stop someone holding a knife. This is not so with a gun. What has to happen to one's mind to think this joke is truth? How are intelligent people convinced to repeat such gibberish? We cannot fathom this. We are so sad for you and especially because we know so many of you wish your country was like ours. Free of gun violence. But there are so many who have such strong emotions, they can not think clearly and see the obvious. We wonder how bad it will get before you have had enough." Ryu Murakami I grew up in Michigan, hunting pheasant and deer. I own a Glock .17. I never thought about this growing up but back then, we didn't have whackjobs walking into churches, malls, theaters and schools and just shooting everyone. I think he hits on a real point when he says that if a murderer or gang-banger gets caught with a gun BEFORE they shoot someone, they walk. Our problem is not laws (except maybe in AZ etc..), it's enforcement. You got a license to own? Great. Trained to operate? Fine. Anyone else caught carrying should get a minimum of a year.
For a moment there I thought you were talking abouting immigration. A muslim immigrant to Europe or an undocumented Mexican immigrant sneaking across the USA's border is far more dangerous than a gun. Where is the progressive outrage over this ?? No, the truth is you are a bunch of hypocrites!! You don't care one bit about the increasing crime and violence. How dare you turn my country into a third-world cesspool and then try to lecture Americans about their guns. There are plenty of places in rural America where every house is FILLLED with guns, and these towns are still much safer than London.
Why would they not? Why do you have such a phobia of guns? Do you feel safe when you see a stranger holding a big sharp knife in a restaurant? Yes, when they are old enough to be responsible. It was once common for 11 year old boys to go off on their own with a rifle in Finland and many parts of Sweden. It taught them about responsibility. Yet today in many places, any adult who even owns a gun is often considered a potential threat to society. Because your children are not murderers. Probably not be a good idea to let your child have access to a gun if you live in a bad neighborhood and you fear your child might become involved in a youth gang. It's a common sight in Arizona and Tennessee. No one thinks twice about seeing a gun in public. It's much like hunting. If I'm in the wilderness and see two men carrying rifles, I do not think anything of it.
Okay um, I guess that if a guy walked into your kid's school with a knife, you and some other adults wouldn't overpower him? If the guy in the shopping mall or theater had a knife, you wouldn't grab a tennis racquet or whatever was nearby and go help stop him. I would. I mean, if you're like really small or old or something, I get understand. But I assure you, there are plenty of us who would step in and stop a lunatic with just fists or knife. Obviously we couldn't do that against an AR-15. How odd. You compare rural America to Urban UK? The logical comparison would be rural America to Rural Europe, Asia etc... In that comparison, America to terribly. In urban areas? Compare the gun-violence rates in any major US city to London, Tokyo, Paris, Rome etc... and again, America does terribly. But I'm using logic and reason. Both of the above posts seem more emotion-based.
If it was a small town and everyone knew eachother, the man would probably be asked what he was doing there. If it was a stranger arriving unannounced, and he also had a vissible weapon on him, I am sure the teachers would phone the police. He would probably be asked to leave. It depends on the situation, and how threatening the man looked, they might evacuate the school. It depends whether he has the knife out or not. If he looked threatening like he was ready to stab someone, I would probably phone the police or let the security guard know. I know things are different in the UK, but you cannot just start attacking someone to try to "stop them" just because they are carrying a weapon. I have two family members that often carry a knife with them in public. It is never out, it is in their pocket or in a sheath clipped to their belt. Sometimes they use it for cutting things, but mostly it does not have much use. It just seems to me that progressives are trying to emasculate everyone, and confiscating their weapons and manly tools is just another extension of this. The whole fear of guns seems mostly emotion-based. Just because there are a few incidences sometimes does not mean every pontentially dangerous thing should be banned.
The problem is we cannot know who a violent criminal is before they commit a crime. There is a big difference between someone who has a gun they are not allowed to have and someone who is planning to use a gun to commit crime. Someone planning to commit a crime could legally buy a gun, and most people in violation of ridiculous gun laws are otherwise not criminally-oriented people. I think they already prevent people who have committed serious violent crimes from owning guns, whether the violent crime was with a gun or not. What I would support though is certain cities being able to impose an 8-year ban on a young adult person found to be in violation of the gun law. This could help address criminal gang issues in certain areas. The city would be the one to decid whether to implement this policy, and the temporary ban would show up on the background check, even if the individual moved to another city. Such an individual would not be able to buy a gun anywhere in the country. By the time the 8-year ban ended, the individual would be older and less at risk for being involved in criminal youth gang activity. But at the same time, an unnecessary restriction of freedom would not be imposed on those areas without any gang problems. I think this would offer a good balance between ensuring freedom and practical measures to reduce crime. This does not make any sense at all. A license and training has nothing to do with whether someone will use the gun to commit crime. Background checks are already being done. Stop trying to punish law-abiding gun owners because of your frustration over not being able to stop criminals from using a gun.
ahhh ,so now you're putting condititions on your statement, YOU said if he had a knife,he wouldn't be abe to kill 20 kids.....this past august,someone in china killed 8 people with a knife in an attack no stretch to see that toll reach 20 ahhh ,so now you're putting condititions on your statement, YOU said if he had a knife,he wouldn't be abe to kill 20 kids.....this past august,someone in china killed 8 people with a knife in an attack no stretch to see that toll reach 20
Fresh off the press: http://onecaribbeanradio.com/after-n...rity-officers/ "...With national sentiment starting to move in favor of stricter gun laws, Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan vetoed a bill on Tuesday that state lawmakers had passed just a day before the shootings in Newtown, allowing registered gun owners to carry concealed weapons in schools. But also on Tuesday, a legislator in South Carolina introduced a similar bill that would allow school employees to carry guns in schools." "In Texas, the tiny, one-school Harrold Independent School District, about 150 miles northwest of Dallas, enacted a policy five years ago to allow teachers and administrators who hold gun licenses and agree to extra training to carry concealed weapons in schools. After the mass shootings at Virginia Tech and in an Amish community in Pennsylvania, David Thweatt, the Harrold superintendent, decided that since the school was too small to afford a security guard, its staff needed to be able to protect students on their own. “I looked around for solutions, and the only solutions are to have some kind of defense,” Mr. Thweatt said. He added that having several staff members with concealed weapons would be more effective than one security guard" Some common sense has taken hold in some places. 28,300 schools got the message.
Fresh off the press: http://onecaribbeanradio.com/after-n...rity-officers/ "...With national sentiment starting to move in favor of stricter gun laws, Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan vetoed a bill on Tuesday that state lawmakers had passed just a day before the shootings in Newtown, allowing registered gun owners to carry concealed weapons in schools. But also on Tuesday, a legislator in South Carolina introduced a similar bill that would allow school employees to carry guns in schools." "In Texas, the tiny, one-school Harrold Independent School District, about 150 miles northwest of Dallas, enacted a policy five years ago to allow teachers and administrators who hold gun licenses and agree to extra training to carry concealed weapons in schools. After the mass shootings at Virginia Tech and in an Amish community in Pennsylvania, David Thweatt, the Harrold superintendent, decided that since the school was too small to afford a security guard, its staff needed to be able to protect students on their own. I looked around for solutions, and the only solutions are to have some kind of defense, Mr. Thweatt said. He added that having several staff members with concealed weapons would be more effective than one security guard" Some common sense has taken hold in some places. 28,300 schools got the message.
1. You make my point for me. Those in New Town did not have the privilege of asking him what he was doing or calling the police and waiting. They were too busy being shot. 2. As above. 3. Those of us who have been traiend in combat don't need guns to feel masculine. This need for a gun to feel masculine is what psychologists called "compensation". Funny you would use the phrase "extension" when talking about your need for a gun. Ask a Liberal Elitist to explain it to you. 4. Those of us without fear, don't need guns to feel secure (meaning 'without fear"). I guess you do. Oh well.
