Gun Control: Is this a real fix?
- Thread starter JosephTheMainMan
- Start date
Yes the strict gun control is felons aren't allowed to own guns. Yet felons are the primary people commiting violent crimes with guns.
Explain to me where they manage to get guns when no one will sell it to them?
The thing is... Only 5-8% of mass shooters are actually mentally ill. Another 20% or so suffer from psychological disorders like depression etc.
The majority of mass shooters are not mentally ill. This means there's nothing to disqualify from them from being vetted, and licensed. As the current laws are.
There's an old saying that goes " guns don't kill people, people kill people". In other words, everyone has the freedom to live how they want to live in this world. Sometimes at the cost of others lives. Guns have nothing to do with it.
A baby momma is going to run you over with her car if she really wants you dead.
A gay chat admin will harass you til your life's end
Yet theres people in here pushing for laws in a country of which they know nothing about.
That is funny but also sad.
Tasers have an operating range of 10-15 meters and are effective 50% of the time at best.
Pistols have an lethal range of about 45-90 meters
Rifles 3-400+ meters
How you plan to subdue criminals shooting lethal rounds with your non lethal taser that misses half the time?
Quote 2 makes the point I’d have made in response to quote 1 so thank you for that.
By not letting them get guns easily in the first place. I know that “my name is bread and I’m right” might struggle with that but it’s a simple fact.
Stats speak for themselves. Cut down the guns and shootings are cut massively. It’s very very simple
Also:
^^ "Mass shooting" is defined as 4+ deaths in an incident
By comparison in the UK, where gun ownership is almost non-existent, there have been 2 mass shootings in the same period.
Even looking at mass shootings as a % of population:
UK: 0.0000033%
US: 0.0014%
And a massdebater will revel in wanting to own a gay man and, scarily, a teenager
D
Deleted member 263960
Guest
Canada has some of the most strict gun control legislation in the world- and gun crime was historically very rare. The same trend was found in the UK and other countries - the stronger the restrictions the less gun crime as (Switzerland has high rates of gun ownership but low rates of gun crime)
Most of the gun crime in Canada today, involves firearms that are already illegal . (handguns have been prohibited since the 1920s , and automatic weapons flat out illegal. Most illegal firearms are thus either stolen from legal sources, or imported illegally. (from the USA)
On topic- the right to bear arms doesnèt exist in Canada. I dont think the framers of the US constitution intended to allow joe citizen packing heat going to the corner store- it most likely applied to the right to arm militia.
TLDR; The US has a big problem
Its Ironic that the USA has too many guns and crime is increasing
Canada has too much gun control and gun crime is increasing.
I only support the right to arm bears. (but id like a 4440 lever action for the castle)
Most of the gun crime in Canada today, involves firearms that are already illegal . (handguns have been prohibited since the 1920s , and automatic weapons flat out illegal. Most illegal firearms are thus either stolen from legal sources, or imported illegally. (from the USA)
On topic- the right to bear arms doesnèt exist in Canada. I dont think the framers of the US constitution intended to allow joe citizen packing heat going to the corner store- it most likely applied to the right to arm militia.
TLDR; The US has a big problem
Its Ironic that the USA has too many guns and crime is increasing
Canada has too much gun control and gun crime is increasing.
I only support the right to arm bears. (but id like a 4440 lever action for the castle)
First off you're comparing apples to oranges.
US is 500% more populated than UK.
330million vs 66million
The UK may not commit "gun crimes" at the same rate as the US because of their lack of guns and strict gun laws.
But that doesn't mean crime ceases to exist.
The data shows UK is in 2nd place, In overall crime. Strange how crime doesn't stop when you remove guns from the equation...
In fact. If you count head for head you would expect USA that has 5x the population to have 5x the crime but it doesn't.
So it's very strange when you look at UK stastics and find that a country with 1/5 of the population is in 2nd place for overall crime.
Also kind of weird how how majority of UK homicides are committed with "sharp objects"...almost as if... Guns don't kill people... and they move onto the next best weapon...
It's called effective range. Which is a combined interpretation of lethality, range, and accuracy. Projectiles from pistols can travel much farther (5+Km) than 45-90 meters at that point they don't carry enough kinetic energy to be used for it's intended purpose (to kill)
They already exist marty mcfly. How do you plan on removing 400 + million guns again?
Is that time machine built yet?
A militia is comprised of joe citizens..packing heat.
By that logic I don't think there was corner stores in 1776 or I don't think the founding fathers expected guns to be compact enough to fit in a pocket or to have ammunition that can travel 5 miles..either..
I don't think you can apply the argument of intended hindsight in that aspect. But what you can argue is why they decided to make the 2nd amendment a right not to be interfered with by the government they were creating.
I don't know how your government is doing but the US has a history of being dishonest to it's people.. just go look at how Epstein vanished and how Biden jrs laptop dissappears. It's almost as if they're being tyrannical... An absolute power exempt from the laws they expect ordinary joes to abide by.
Funny coming from a gay chat admin of whom has a multitude of greatly detailed rules specifically relating to the exploitation and abuse of children..
Almost like it's a known problem in that
🌈 "community"🌈
D
Deleted member 263960
Guest
yes but the idea is its not permanently armed while off duty
true,but like my first point, the framers likely didnt envision a permantenly armed militia at a kids birthday party, going to the US Mail, visiting the local Blacksmith either- aqs there would be no need. Militias really are intended as an *on call temp status. The writers didnt likely intend anyone to be able to haul a cannon to church either. I agree application in *hindsite can be troublesome
I find this interesting. Americans seem to have a deep level of suspicion towards government. Ignoring the fact that the minutemen used firearms to illegally overthrow legitimate and lawful government, I can understand the argument either * we all pack heat or no one does*
In Canada there is no right in law to carry any weapon of any kind for the purposes of self defence , but the Police can.
You can only argue the words written in the constitution as they are written by what they mean. You can also use literature from that time to support how those words were defined. You can not argue "what they could have meant".
If you misinterpret what free state means then it's also easy to misinterpret what a militia means.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
"A well regulated militia.."
Upholds the value of armed citizens which are necessary to protect their right to freedom
"being necessary to the security of a free State"
This means citizens have a right to protect themselves from not only internal oppression(govt) but also from external threats(people).
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
Grants the protection of these armed citizens from being disarmed as individuals.
This both protects their rights as a collective, as well as individuals.
That's why we should not try to interpret those words and use hindsight to propose what they could have meant, using today's standards.
You need to read the amendment as a whole and not just the militia portion. The amendment clearly states it is the right of the people(the people that make up those militias) to bear arms.
So yes the idea is to be permanently armed while off duty.
Well regulated? That's self explanatory and your current position on firearms does not meet that definition at all.
A militia is an organised body drawn from the populace to support the armed forces when required. Nope. Doesn't meet that definition either.
The right to keep and bear arms was given when the level of technology was muzzle loaded weaponry. The amendment needs amending to keep pace with developments in weapon technology and that's where strict licencing comes in. The people that wrote and passed that amendment would probably recoil in horror if they could see where you are now. They'd almost certainly have rewritten it or even torn it up entirely.
You country is a mess. Your legal systems favour the wealthy and influential over the common man. Your financial policies do the same. Your health provision too. Your presidential election system is incredibly biased and should be taken on an overall vote count. Your political system is biased towards the wealthy.
Your politicians, instead of standing up and being counted when a mass shooting occurs, just drone out the same trite, meaningless nonsense about guns not killing people and thoughts and prayers. Then they crawl off to put their snouts in the trough of the gun lobby.
A militia is an organised body drawn from the populace to support the armed forces when required. Nope. Doesn't meet that definition either.
The right to keep and bear arms was given when the level of technology was muzzle loaded weaponry. The amendment needs amending to keep pace with developments in weapon technology and that's where strict licencing comes in. The people that wrote and passed that amendment would probably recoil in horror if they could see where you are now. They'd almost certainly have rewritten it or even torn it up entirely.
You country is a mess. Your legal systems favour the wealthy and influential over the common man. Your financial policies do the same. Your health provision too. Your presidential election system is incredibly biased and should be taken on an overall vote count. Your political system is biased towards the wealthy.
Your politicians, instead of standing up and being counted when a mass shooting occurs, just drone out the same trite, meaningless nonsense about guns not killing people and thoughts and prayers. Then they crawl off to put their snouts in the trough of the gun lobby.
i hate when people act like the constitution can't be touched. when most of the parts of the constitution everyone points to are....wait for it.....amendments.
TheGreatMane
Active Member
Well all I know is, I like being armed, not with a taser, knife, or a rape whistle. I like being armed with guns on my property and on my persons. I hope to never use it against someone and im glad I haven't been in a situation where I had to. I want the best tool to defend myself, my property, and my family. I want as much law abiding citizens to be armed around the world, I personally don't trust only government institutions and government officials to be armed only. I want the same protection that politicians and celebrities have because they have armed security all the time.
When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
Also in addition, the SCOTUS has ruled multiple times in the favor of citizens/private individuals having the right to bear arms, but they have also ruled in the favor of the government of imposing permits/license for citizens to carry
When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
Also in addition, the SCOTUS has ruled multiple times in the favor of citizens/private individuals having the right to bear arms, but they have also ruled in the favor of the government of imposing permits/license for citizens to carry
how do we know the founding fathers didn't just want everyone to have bear arms? we're really all guessing what they meant..
this is what happens when you pick at words without context. Especially when you are defining words by 21st century standards.
You start to get silly quotes like this
Please notice how the term bear arms bears no relevance to muzzle loaded weaponry. Bear arms is classified as any weaponry. That's why our laws aren't written under the opinion of some dumbass kid on a chatroom and instead are upheld by the highest levela of education, courts of law and historians.
Please do take a look at United states vs Miller, Dist of Columbia vs Heller and McDonald vs City of Chicago.
This is all explained in very great detail there.
You seem to acknowledge the fact of why we need the right to bear arms here.
How is your political system fairing by the way? I can't remember the last time a queen handed out rubies and gold to everyone upon her passing. That's somen genuine wealth distribution right there.
How do you plan on overthrowing that wealthy unjust political system?
Using sticks and stones against a fleet of gunpowder and steel? That's called a massacre. The issue that is at the center of this debate.
I'm fully aware of what the right to bear arms means. However, the firearms at the time were muzzle loaded. I therefore stand by my statement.this is what happens when you pick at words without context. Especially when you are defining words by 21st century standards.
You start to get silly quotes like this
Please notice how the term bear arms bears no relevance to muzzle loaded weaponry. Bear arms is classified as any weaponry. That's why our laws aren't written under the opinion of some dumbass kid on a chatroom and instead are upheld by the highest levela of education, courts of law and historians.
Please do take a look at United states vs Miller, Dist of Columbia vs Heller and McDonald vs City of Chicago.
This is all explained in very great detail there.
You seem to acknowledge the fact of why we need the right to bear arms here.
How is your political system fairing by the way? I can't remember the last time a queen handed out rubies and gold to everyone upon her passing. That's somen genuine wealth distribution right there.
How do you plan on overthrowing that wealthy unjust political system?
Using sticks and stones against a fleet of gunpowder and steel? That's called a massacre. The issue that is at the center of this debate.
Actually Scotland is doing pretty well. It has a fair and equally applied legal system, Our political system is based on proportional representation although not the best version unfortunately (we use the additional member system) for Scottish Government elections although we do use the infinitely superior and fair single transferable vote for local government. Our political system is progressive and at 16, I can vote in any Scottish election. So if the Government or our local authority are trying to exploit us we have the means to remove them peacefully. Pretty civilised really.
We have a health system that's free to all at the point of delivery and this includes dental care as well.
Your system, on the other hand, is in trouble and once again I stand by my previous statements on the matter.
Now now don't discourage rape whistles.
They can be heard up to a mile away.
A normal car already traveling at 100mph would take over 40 seconds of being raped to reach 1 mile
Now imagine how long it would take a person on foot
Answer: Usain Bolt would take over 3.5mins to come to your aid.
Pic related: An 11,000 horsepower police fleet vehicle rushing to the scene of a crime
Amen to that. A gun can stop a rapist (or shooter) in all of about a second it takes for him to drop and bleed to death on the floor