pitiful pissy dodge.....: There isn't a Lib alive that can answer that one for themselves..........not one
I would agree to that, PROVIDING THE REDUCTION WOULD BE FROM CRIMINALS. Ban (effectively) guns from criminals, or better yet ban Criminals, not guns. Based on the various gun control nut posts on this forum, I believe the emotion is mostly on your side. I suspect that gun ownership as a % of total population in our little south Alabama town is much higher than a city like NY, or Washington, DC, or Chicago. Yet firearm homicide is much lower as a % of the population than in those inner cities with their drugs and gangs. Do you believe you could disarm the criminals and gangs? Ever?
The major difference being one of those colonies fought a war to free themselves from Britain, one didn't see a need to do that.
In 2012 with a population of 4.8 million Alabama had 342 homicides. In 2012 NYC with a population of 8.3 million had 414 homicides. A little town can have one murder every 20 years and have a higher homicide rate than NYC.....
Yes if you have a property or "ranch" you can own a gun and hold a gun licence. Seems one of the most effective implementations was locking the guns away
Again - who is the "criminal" when a vast number are NOT criminals up until they commit a crime This is little dated This one has an interactive map http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/gun-deaths-us-newtown_n_2935686.html
Yes, and I was not a rape victim up until they committed the crime. Kind of a first time for everyone involved. A far better outcome would have been very probable if I'd had my .38, nobody needed to get hurt or spend years in jail with their lives and their families lives ruined. Or, someone does get hurt, but its the aggressor. Your "not a criminal till they commit a crime" is of course, just news of the tautological. Did you have a point to make? You seem well able to think, so id like to know what your t hought is. - - - Updated - - - Interesting to see how closely those maps match where they vote democrat, or republican. I wonder what the connection is.
What about, "our little south Alabama town" do you believe relates to all Alabama Stats? - - - Updated - - - That would be an unconstitutional requirement in the US.
Missouri Parents Required To Report Gun Ownership To Schools Under Maria Chappelle-Nadal Bill http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/missouri-parents-required_n_2545510.html failure to report such ownership results in a penalty FROM the school
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/missouri-parents-required_n_2545510.html It's not the school district's business to harass law abiding citizens and demand to know if they own weapons. That's harassment. FYI The Public School's 'job' is supposed to be 'EDUCATION' not "Law enforcement". And when the parents do not 'comply' they are hit with a penalty. What part of the school levying a penalty on 'parents' (because they won't say if they own weapons or not) is NOT harassment? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/missouri-parents-required_n_2545510.html (Thanks for the link stjames1_53) Once again, the public schools are not supposed to be 'law enforcement'.
It could be. Especially if criminals are targeting people to steal guns. What do you think people do? Sit in their house waiting for a break in?
It's harrassment to ask someone if they own a firearm? Would it also be harrassment to ask them if they own a car? Are people so hyper-sensitive that anyone mentioning firearms must be persecuting them? Pathetic. FYI, the public school's "job" is to provide a safe environment in which kids can be educated. Given the increase in school shootings by kids, knowing whether kids have easy access to firearms doesn't seem unreasonable. Repeating the same fallacy several times doesn't make it any more valid. - - - Updated - - - Right, because the public school system is a cover for a network of cat burglars specializing in domestic firearms.
I answered the questions, and posted the link (from a liberal source no less) proving my points. And what do you do? You 'whine' about "Repeating the same fallacy several times ..." when you can't even prove that what I said is a 'fallacy'..." As a matter of fact the link I posted PROVED what I said was no fallacy. And here is the link again (from Liberal sources no less) proving YOU are the one 'repeating the same fallacy ...over and over and over and over again. .http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/missouri-parents-required_n_2545510.html In your 'whining' about 'me' repeating the same fallacy .... etc... and so forth ... (and yet 'you' being unable to refute the evidence from a liberal source no less proving the points I made); you described yourself perfectly. And once again I ask you ... (although I have no doubt that once again you will IGNORE the question) how is a school levying a fine on parents who own weapons is not a 'penalty' aka harassment ...... (which again the 1st link from a liberal source no less) proves? Oh here's a couple of 'new' links though ...... proving the schools are harassing law abiding, honorably discharged vets who own weapons and 'dare' to 'talk' about them on Face book..... via banning the mother from her daughter's school.... BTW the only photo she was banned for ...was for her daring to show a photo of her gun permit. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...ons-permit-tanya-mount-georgia_n_4227665.html http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023980640 http://www.wfxg.com/story/23920975/mom-banned-from-school-sues It must be 'nice' for Democrats to 'pick and choose' who they deem to be worthy of 'exercising their 1st amendment and 2nd amendment rights' ... (especially since the mom in question only posted a pic of her permit and not her hunting trophies).
Naivety is not particularly pretty. ANY DATA base of who owns firearms and where they might live is too much. There is no excuse for anyone other than the owner to know what or where.
I would like to see a school deny me, a citizen, the right to enter a school because I own firearms. I suspect I would come out of this a millionaire.
The answer to the question asked is none of the mass shootings would have been prevented...so why pursue this gun control. Stopping criminals is a worthy goal but should it be at the expense of the individual citizen who would be denied his right to self-defense? How many Aussies might still be alive or avoided serious injury had they had the right/option to defend with a firearm?
I like this information eh? http://www.newsmax.com/US/guns-control-britain-australia/2012/12/27/id/469185 or this is good eh? http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dg...otings-piers-morgan-claims-gun-control-works/ This one is particularly damming eh? http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012...duce-violent-crime-ask-the-aussies-and-brits/ Gosh you just can't make this stuff up eh?
You're right, it was rhetorical but only due to the fact that, I believe, the answer is so obvious. Anti-self defense people want to point to a study (are, can these be "massaged" or "slanted" for a specific agenda?) to take away the right/option to defend a citizen's life with a firearm. And what is a firearm except the most modern equalizer that allows those with physical disparities relative to an aggressor to operate within a more level field of engagement. Pro-self defense people want all citizens (individual people, less disqualifiers) to have the option to protect and defend themselves with what best suits them and their particular need period. Criminals as a matter of fact do not obey laws. Passing laws with the belief that the law will change criminal behaviour is an anti-liberty delusion.
2 blogs and a conspiracy site - good pickings there…………………..not!! - - - Updated - - - I have the right of defence BUT it must be in proportion to the perceived threat - adding a firearm into that mix ensures I will end up in a court (expensive) and perhaps jail (unhappily)
Funny how you keep avoiding the Melborn Institute conclusion I have linked numerous times that basically substantiates the 2 bloggers and a conspiracy site...I'd say where there is smoke there is fire eh?
..then turn you opponent's head into hamburger and tell me how you plan to live with that. It takes a high level of brutality to beat a man to death with a bat, even in self defense. You could still end up in trouble because you are not allowed to defend yourselves with anything more than begging.
