Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
Post by Jessiealan on Oct 3, 2015 10:32:45 GMT -5
Anyone who aids or encourages people who are set on this kind of distruction should have to share the responsibility. That goes for whoever made the guns available to him and even the people who egged him on over the internet.
Yes, it does eat into freedoms but those should not include the freedom to kill.
Men an tol, guns are not like other properties - your car, your pool - They are for aggression or defense and as such they should, in my humble opinion, be treated far more seriously and have more restrictions.
There was nothing wrong with President Obama's speech. It would have been offensive if he had taken this anymore lightly. It was right and proper.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Oct 3, 2015 13:56:33 GMT -5
Anyone who aids or encourages people who are set on this kind of distruction should have to share the responsibility. That goes for whoever made the guns available to him and even the people who egged him on over the internet. Yes, it does eat into freedoms but those should not include the freedom to kill. Men an tol, guns are not like other properties - your car, your pool - They are for aggression or defense and as such they should, in my humble opinion, be treated far more seriously and have more restrictions. There was nothing wrong with President Obama's speech. It would have been offensive if he had taken this anymore lightly. It was right and proper. Jessie Alan, I always hesitate when offering thoughts on this subject as I am aware that there is such a strong opposition to the comments I make. I say this knowing that my words will have no impact here even though they are based in fact and not feelings. I realize that others (apparently such as yourself) do no agree that guns are just another tool. People just want to do something because the aftermath of death and the impact on the lives of others, is so hard to make sense of, but doing the wrong thing can be as bad as doing nothing. The percentage of guns used for evil is so small as to be nearly unrecognizable. Other things are far more detrimental to life than guns. In addition guns contribute to far more good in people's lives that then evil things that a few do. However, I'm a realist in that I understand that those against guns will never accept such statements as true even when figures prove them as true. I have about come to the conclusion that when these comments arise just to say nothing. As far as President Obama, he knows the figures that demonstrate that the areas with the most laws of gun control are the most dangerous in the nation, after all his agencies put such figures together. He knows that those areas supporting of individual gun ownership are some of the safest areas in America. But it strongly appears that he too isn't interested in actual facts but wants more, and more gun control, even though the Supreme Court has defined such as an individual right.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 3, 2015 15:20:33 GMT -5
it really is time that America got a grip on gun ownership.. at the very least the keeping of guns in a safe place should be mandatary and inspected to ensure suitability and making the owner of guns responsible for the use and the storing of the said guns would hardly be draconian a solid gun cabinet of a certain stndard would not be an imposition on any ones freedom... It just shows how one society went one way and the other.... I think realistically it will be at least another 200 years before American civilisation gets past that good ole puritan instinct and wild west attitude
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 3, 2015 15:28:49 GMT -5
Anyone who aids or encourages people who are set on this kind of distruction should have to share the responsibility. That goes for whoever made the guns available to him and even the people who egged him on over the internet. Yes, it does eat into freedoms but those should not include the freedom to kill. Men an tol, guns are not like other properties - your car, your pool - They are for aggression or defense and as such they should, in my humble opinion, be treated far more seriously and have more restrictions. There was nothing wrong with President Obama's speech. It would have been offensive if he had taken this anymore lightly. It was right and proper. Jessie Alan, I always hesitate when offering thoughts on this subject as I am aware that there is such a strong opposition to the comments I make. I say this knowing that my words will have no impact here even though they are based in fact and not feelings. I realize that others (apparently such as yourself) do no agree that guns are just another tool. People just want to do something because the aftermath of death and the impact on the lives of others, is so hard to make sense of, but doing the wrong thing can be as bad as doing nothing. The percentage of guns used for evil is so small as to be nearly unrecognizable. Other things are far more detrimental to life than guns. In addition guns contribute to far more good in people's lives that then evil things that a few do. However, I'm a realist in that I understand that those against guns will never accept such statements as true even when figures prove them as true. I have about come to the conclusion that when these comments arise just to say nothing. As far as President Obama, he knows the figures that demonstrate that the areas with the most laws of gun control are the most dangerous in the nation, after all his agencies put such figures together. He knows that those areas supporting of individual gun ownership are some of the safest areas in America. But it strongly appears that he too isn't interested in actual facts but wants more, and more gun control, even though the Supreme Court has defined such as an individual right. As a complete outsider, it seems to me that the constitution is in a similar rut to the Qu'ran. The constitution is the word of god in all but name, can it be reformed where arms are concerned? If some people are crazy enough to shoot up cinemas, malls and schools, they're not going to give up their guns lightly. Parts of America are wild and dangerous and require a gun; law enforcement might also be some considerable distance away. We'll just have to watch how this evolves over the long term. It's a case of how many fatalities are too many? Clearly, the current rate is not too many.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Oct 3, 2015 15:36:09 GMT -5
Too much money from gun supporters going out to the politicians who have the power to NOT move a finger to support more sensible gun laws. They keep a rumor that "someone" is trying to strip the population of it's guns so they will be vulnerable ... and ... there are enough people who whole heartedly believe that to keep the blood flowing.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Oct 3, 2015 19:22:32 GMT -5
Jessie Alan, I always hesitate when offering thoughts on this subject as I am aware that there is such a strong opposition to the comments I make. I say this knowing that my words will have no impact here even though they are based in fact and not feelings. I realize that others (apparently such as yourself) do no agree that guns are just another tool. People just want to do something because the aftermath of death and the impact on the lives of others, is so hard to make sense of, but doing the wrong thing can be as bad as doing nothing. The percentage of guns used for evil is so small as to be nearly unrecognizable. Other things are far more detrimental to life than guns. In addition guns contribute to far more good in people's lives that then evil things that a few do. However, I'm a realist in that I understand that those against guns will never accept such statements as true even when figures prove them as true. I have about come to the conclusion that when these comments arise just to say nothing. As far as President Obama, he knows the figures that demonstrate that the areas with the most laws of gun control are the most dangerous in the nation, after all his agencies put such figures together. He knows that those areas supporting of individual gun ownership are some of the safest areas in America. But it strongly appears that he too isn't interested in actual facts but wants more, and more gun control, even though the Supreme Court has defined such as an individual right. As a complete outsider, it seems to me that the constitution is in a similar rut to the Qu'ran. The constitution is the word of god in all but name, can it be reformed where arms are concerned? If some people are crazy enough to shoot up cinemas, malls and schools, they're not going to give up their guns lightly. Parts of America are wild and dangerous and require a gun; law enforcement might also be some considerable distance away. We'll just have to watch how this evolves over the long term. It's a case of how many fatalities are too many? Clearly, the current rate is not too many. Thanks for the input Fret. I have always had the feeling (no proof) that those from outside of the United States have little understanding of the Constitution of the United States in its creation or its intent. In fact, it would be amazing if they did as there are many in the United States who also do not have that understanding. In the past, myself and another individual had a Yahoo Group which was created specifically for those who wished to study Constitutional history, its cultural roots, its creation, and the case law which results from applying it to cases. This Proboard venue is not the right site for such dialog and study. In truth, the Constitution is anything but being in a rut or cast in concrete (as it were) but is a foundation for some few absolutes. Its intent was (is) to create a national government that would be (is) defined entirely within the Constitutionally Delegated Powers as well as limitations on federal actions and as altered by the Amendments. The intent was to have the government protect, enhance, and extent, individual rights; and to defend the country. As the initial part of those amendments, there is what is often referred to as the 'Bill of Rights' initially comprised of ten articles (amendments) and in these initial amendments they were of two types that is, the first eight being exclusionary as they excluded the federal government from doing specifically defined acts. The Ninth Amendment was general in nature and makes it clear that individual rights are not limited To the Constitution or the Amendments. The Tenth Amendment makes clear that the federal government has only the powers delegated to it in the Constitution and that all others are reserved to the States or the People. In 1868 with the 14th Amendment this began to be increasingly extended to State governments through case law of the Supreme Court's power for Judicial Review. In this Constitution (a sort of contract between the State governments) exists the criminal and civil court systems. This is a structured system which has limits placed on it more or less defining the separation of legal power between the federal government and the State governments. This is also the restraining system that can be applied to excesses of individuals in the Capitalist Free Market System (also supportive of Individual Freedom), which is a system of voluntary association of contract. I've said too much here (but far, far, far, less than I could say) but to your comment about the suggesting that the Constitution is in a similar rut to the Qur'an, the Qur'an is the revealed word of Allah and as such cannot be changed, ever. If a Muslim is reading it, or reciting from memory, it is (figuratively) as if Allah was speaking in your ear. There is no comparable thing in the Constitution. Since its ratification in 1787 and the ratification of the Bill of rights in 1791, it has been used many different ways, it can be interpreted from a number of accepted philosophies, and, it has expanded and extend individual rights far beyond the days of initial ratification. It has had an addition seventeen Amendments ratified out of a number of others proposed to it. It is anything but in a rut and nothing of the Qur'an is similar in any manner. As to your comments about those who shoot up (whatever) this is not a fault in the Constitution. These wrong use of guns (causing harm and death to others) is bad but and they number in the thousands, but to understand them correctly the other side of the coin should be viewed, that is, the good happening due to the use of guns. The best study ever completed about this was by Professor John Lott and places such good events annually at about two million (2,000,000), far out weighing the bad events. This is not to suggest that any bad use of guns is acceptable, but a realistic case can be made that restricting gun ownership or even restricting gun ownership may not be the answer. There is also the reality that much of what is promoted to 'fix' the problem already exists. For example in my State if a person has a record of mental illness of has a felony they cannot not have a weapon. This reality of deaths must be examined for what would truly be a viable solution. Restricting gund for the honest citizen is not the answer.
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 3, 2015 21:18:20 GMT -5
It's a case of how many fatalities are too many? Clearly, the current rate is not too many. That is correct. Given the number of firearms in the United States, the rate of violence is extremely low. Mass shootings are part of the American culture. It's something we have to live with.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Oct 3, 2015 22:10:03 GMT -5
As a complete outsider, it seems to me that the constitution is in a similar rut to the Qu'ran. The constitution is the word of god in all but name, can it be reformed where arms are concerned? If some people are crazy enough to shoot up cinemas, malls and schools, they're not going to give up their guns lightly. Parts of America are wild and dangerous and require a gun; law enforcement might also be some considerable distance away. We'll just have to watch how this evolves over the long term. It's a case of how many fatalities are too many? Clearly, the current rate is not too many. Thanks for the input Fret. I have always had the feeling (no proof) that those from outside of the United States have little understanding of the Constitution of the United States in its creation or its intent. In fact, it would be amazing if they did as there are many in the United States who also do not have that understanding. In the past, myself and another individual had a Yahoo Group which was created specifically for those who wished to study Constitutional history, its cultural roots, its creation, and the case law which results from applying it to cases. This Proboard venue is not the right site for such dialog and study. In truth, the Constitution is anything but being in a rut or cast in concrete (as it were) but is a foundation for some few absolutes. Its intent was (is) to create a national government that would be (is) defined entirely within the Constitutionally Delegated Powers as well as limitations on federal actions and as altered by the Amendments. The intent was to have the government protect, enhance, and extent, individual rights; and to defend the country. As the initial part of those amendments, there is what is often referred to as the 'Bill of Rights' initially comprised of ten articles (amendments) and in these initial amendments they were of two types that is, the first eight being exclusionary as they excluded the federal government from doing specifically defined acts. The Ninth Amendment was general in nature and makes it clear that individual rights are not limited To the Constitution or the Amendments. The Tenth Amendment makes clear that the federal government has only the powers delegated to it in the Constitution and that all others are reserved to the States or the People. In 1868 with the 14th Amendment this began to be increasingly extended to State governments through case law of the Supreme Court's power for Judicial Review. In this Constitution (a sort of contract between the State governments) exists the criminal and civil court systems. This is a structured system which has limits placed on it more or less defining the separation of legal power between the federal government and the State governments. This is also the restraining system that can be applied to excesses of individuals in the Capitalist Free Market System (also supportive of Individual Freedom), which is a system of voluntary association of contract. I've said too much here (but far, far, far, less than I could say) but to your comment about the suggesting that the Constitution is in a similar rut to the Qur'an, the Qur'an is the revealed word of Allah and as such cannot be changed, ever. If a Muslim is reading it, or reciting from memory, it is (figuratively) as if Allah was speaking in your ear. There is no comparable thing in the Constitution. Since its ratification in 1787 and the ratification of the Bill of rights in 1791, it has been used many different ways, it can be interpreted from a number of accepted philosophies, and, it has expanded and extend individual rights far beyond the days of initial ratification. It has had an addition seventeen Amendments ratified out of a number of others proposed to it. It is anything but in a rut and nothing of the Qur'an is similar in any manner. As to your comments about those who shoot up (whatever) this is not a fault in the Constitution. These wrong use of guns (causing harm and death to others) is bad but and they number in the thousands, but to understand them correctly the other side of the coin should be viewed, that is, the good happening due to the use of guns. The best study ever completed about this was by Professor John Lott and places such good events annually at about two million (2,000,000), far out weighing the bad events. This is not to suggest that any bad use of guns is acceptable, but a realistic case can be made that restricting gun ownership or even restricting gun ownership may not be the answer. There is also the reality that much of what is promoted to 'fix' the problem already exists. For example in my State if a person has a record of mental illness of has a felony they cannot not have a weapon. This reality of deaths must be examined for what would truly be a viable solution. Restricting gund for the honest citizen is not the answer. That "honest citizen" needs to be required to accept responsibility for gun ownership. There should be restrictions that require (s)he take steps to keep said gun(s) out of the hands of those who are a danger when they are armed. Then, if they allow their weapon(s) to get into the hands of the bad guys, they should be punished as suits the crime. It's vital that gun ownership be taken seriously. Right now, it is not.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Oct 3, 2015 23:02:52 GMT -5
Thanks for the input Fret. I have always had the feeling (no proof) that those from outside of the United States have little understanding of the Constitution of the United States in its creation or its intent. In fact, it would be amazing if they did as there are many in the United States who also do not have that understanding. In the past, myself and another individual had a Yahoo Group which was created specifically for those who wished to study Constitutional history, its cultural roots, its creation, and the case law which results from applying it to cases. This Proboard venue is not the right site for such dialog and study. In truth, the Constitution is anything but being in a rut or cast in concrete (as it were) but is a foundation for some few absolutes. Its intent was (is) to create a national government that would be (is) defined entirely within the Constitutionally Delegated Powers as well as limitations on federal actions and as altered by the Amendments. The intent was to have the government protect, enhance, and extent, individual rights; and to defend the country. As the initial part of those amendments, there is what is often referred to as the 'Bill of Rights' initially comprised of ten articles (amendments) and in these initial amendments they were of two types that is, the first eight being exclusionary as they excluded the federal government from doing specifically defined acts. The Ninth Amendment was general in nature and makes it clear that individual rights are not limited To the Constitution or the Amendments. The Tenth Amendment makes clear that the federal government has only the powers delegated to it in the Constitution and that all others are reserved to the States or the People. In 1868 with the 14th Amendment this began to be increasingly extended to State governments through case law of the Supreme Court's power for Judicial Review. In this Constitution (a sort of contract between the State governments) exists the criminal and civil court systems. This is a structured system which has limits placed on it more or less defining the separation of legal power between the federal government and the State governments. This is also the restraining system that can be applied to excesses of individuals in the Capitalist Free Market System (also supportive of Individual Freedom), which is a system of voluntary association of contract. I've said too much here (but far, far, far, less than I could say) but to your comment about the suggesting that the Constitution is in a similar rut to the Qur'an, the Qur'an is the revealed word of Allah and as such cannot be changed, ever. If a Muslim is reading it, or reciting from memory, it is (figuratively) as if Allah was speaking in your ear. There is no comparable thing in the Constitution. Since its ratification in 1787 and the ratification of the Bill of rights in 1791, it has been used many different ways, it can be interpreted from a number of accepted philosophies, and, it has expanded and extend individual rights far beyond the days of initial ratification. It has had an addition seventeen Amendments ratified out of a number of others proposed to it. It is anything but in a rut and nothing of the Qur'an is similar in any manner. As to your comments about those who shoot up (whatever) this is not a fault in the Constitution. These wrong use of guns (causing harm and death to others) is bad but and they number in the thousands, but to understand them correctly the other side of the coin should be viewed, that is, the good happening due to the use of guns. The best study ever completed about this was by Professor John Lott and places such good events annually at about two million (2,000,000), far out weighing the bad events. This is not to suggest that any bad use of guns is acceptable, but a realistic case can be made that restricting gun ownership or even restricting gun ownership may not be the answer. There is also the reality that much of what is promoted to 'fix' the problem already exists. For example in my State if a person has a record of mental illness of has a felony they cannot not have a weapon. This reality of deaths must be examined for what would truly be a viable solution. Restricting gund for the honest citizen is not the answer. That "honest citizen" needs to be required to accept responsibility for gun ownership. There should be restrictions that require (s)he take steps to keep said gun(s) out of the hands of those who are a danger when they are armed. Then, if they allow their weapon(s) to get into the hands of the bad guys, they should be punished as suits the crime. It's vital that gun ownership be taken seriously. Right now, it is not. Beth, I realize that we have very divergence perspectives on this subject, so much so that I suspect that there is no way we will ever find any common ground. I also suspect that you'll not be surprised to hear that I do not accept your offered concepts as absolutes or even requirements for solutions for the problem of gun use. A gun is similar to other personally owned property. The owner is responsible for that property. Their insurance reflects that responsibility. As with any tool/gun owned by an individual they must take reasonable steps to ensure it is used properly. Like your car which a responsible own keeps locked and when not in use, lock in a garage. Like your powered lawn mower or snow blower, when not in use it is not able to be started and/or locked in a garage or shed. More over, there are (at least where I live) local codes which set the rules on having a gun and how it is used. Here in my town no individual can cause a projectile to be fired within the city limits. That isn't limited to guns but any projectile device, such as a bow and arrow, a sling shot, a thrown rock, any projectile. More over for those of use who have carry permits we are not allowed to carry this legal weapon in the State capitol, or on any city property or any property where the owner has put up a notice that guns are not allowed. You know what? My county is one of the heaviest are counties in the State and no one has ever been arrest for breaking any of these rules except criminals breaking the law or a gang want-to-be. I don't understand how a legal owner of a gun 'allows their weapon(s) to get into the hands of the bad guys.' The guns are kept in the house or on their person and bad guy would have to intentionally attack the individual or break into the house and steal the gun, so far there is no such crime recorded in our county to steal guns. I also do not understand how a honest citizen with a legally owned gun, “should be punished as suits the crime” if the gun has been stolen from them by the bad guy. Your allegation “It's vital that gun ownership be taken seriously. Right now, it is not.” is something I do not understand or agree with. I do not know of a single gun owner who doesn't take gun ownership seriously. It is obvious that we have a very different perception of the American people. I know a lot of local people who have guns and they have a very serious attitude about guns. In addition I am on first name basis with members of three different shooting clubs (probably near 200 people) and from the times when I was an active firearms instructor I know close to another 200 people who went through such programs and through the county extension programs centered on 4-H I have met and worked with many others with guns and never have I met a person who is not responsible. This is also true in the various Veteran groups where I am a member or associated as nearly all of the members of those groups I have met have guns (many have carry permits) and I have yet to meet a single person who I would consider as not being a responsible gun owner. It seems to me that to enforce what you seem to want relative to guns could only be accomplished through an overly intrusive (and much larger) police force. And (in my opinion) all of that would be for naught as buying a black market gun is simple and easy in nearly all communities in the United States and such transactions would be by people who do not, and will not, care about any such laws. Only the honest citizen will be impacted. Even if sources of guns were to dry up, manufacturing a gun is quite easy for most people with machinist experience.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Oct 3, 2015 23:28:55 GMT -5
You're complicating it unnecessarily, Men an tol. Nothing to do with the "gun police" knocking at the door.
I meant ... if guns used in murder come from a person or persons who have not secured them but made them available to the killers, they should have to face punishment. Simple really. We just need the laws on the books ... if we can ever get past the bought and paid for politicians who benefit from insisting there's nothing they can do.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Oct 4, 2015 0:29:58 GMT -5
You're complicating it unnecessarily, Men an tol. Nothing to do with the "gun police" knocking at the door. I meant ... if guns used in murder come from a person or persons who have not secured them but made them available to the killers, they should have to face punishment. Simple really. We just need the laws on the books ... if we can ever get past the bought and paid for politicians who benefit from insisting there's nothing they can do. Beth, having guns in the house is not making guns available, handing the killer the gun makes the person who gave the gun aiding and abetting the commission of the crime. However, just having the gun in the house (if that is what you are driving at) and the killer took the gun without the owners permission or knowledge, no crime was committed. Securing a gun is in the eye of the beholder. Certainly keeping the gun in a gun safe is one way of securing the gun. But if the gun is in that gun safe and your grandma can't reach it when someone attacks her, that type of securing is no different than killing her. I suggest that the laws that are needed are already enacted. That in addition to that insurance companies add to this by putting liability restrictions on the gun owner. If additional laws are in acted it is very likely that guns people own will start disappearing as the honest people will start hiding them and the black market in guns will begin to grow. In fact, honest people will become law breakers due to overly restrictive laws.
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Oct 4, 2015 0:41:32 GMT -5
the Surname Mercer is not of Irish origin Mercer is the old English name for habadasher or dealer in materials[cottons/silks/velvets etc etc] his liking from a distance of the IRA and or neo nazis is of no great import in one way.. but in another way it is typical and shows a certain mindset usual to the insignificant male of low self esteem whose existence is of no importance There are some Irish Mercers, the name in England is most common in the North East the bit near to Ireland (Lancashire area I think). Why should his existence be on no importance? He is a human being after all. Perhaps that is the problem, the USA is a very selfish society. Is this him?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 4, 2015 3:13:35 GMT -5
You're complicating it unnecessarily, Men an tol. Nothing to do with the "gun police" knocking at the door. I meant ... if guns used in murder come from a person or persons who have not secured them but made them available to the killers, they should have to face punishment. Simple really. We just need the laws on the books ... if we can ever get past the bought and paid for politicians who benefit from insisting there's nothing they can do. I absolutely agree with you Beth...the safe storing of guns should be paramount...the owner of said guns being wholly responsible for that securing....if however some one breaks into that security that is a different matter bit like ownership of a car..you are responsible for that car and its security....but if someone steals that car your not
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 4, 2015 3:39:55 GMT -5
the Surname Mercer is not of Irish origin Mercer is the old English name for habadasher or dealer in materials[cottons/silks/velvets etc etc] his liking from a distance of the IRA and or neo nazis is of no great import in one way.. but in another way it is typical and shows a certain mindset usual to the insignificant male of low self esteem whose existence is of no importance There are some Irish Mercers, the name in England is most common in the North East the bit near to Ireland (Lancashire area I think). cWhy should his existence be on no importance? He is a human being after all. Perhaps that is the problem, the USA is a very selfish society. Is this him? mercers in Ireland...well the name is English in origin..but even the Irish needed materials so maybe a mercer went to Ireland..who knows kronks wrote ..Why should his existence be on no importance?""" I have no idea but his low self esteem would make him think that way......he may be a human being but human beings are not all happy little bundles of fun...this chap certainly wasn't kronks wrote...""Perhaps that is the problem, the USA is a very selfish society""" oh my word cannot resist a nasty remark to America....the world is full of weirdos..misfits and wannabes its not just America that has problems with introverted insignificant males it happens in all societies which value progress..invention and innovation and that have high standards of living it is beging to happen in china too[check that out] any simply cannot stand the pressure and the unspoken unseen presures males more so than females who realise they cannot cut it and will not achieve to the extent of family, friends and expectation..and freak out in various ways and to various degrees[being a member of a gang is one recognised way of trying to empower ones self] and the new sleb culture doesn't help..young women and young men who want their 5mins of fame or notoriety but to young men it appears to them to be part of their manhood or lack of it and what better way to instant fame and having your name known...than a mass kill...not for them the hard way of work..industry..skill..determination..so introverted and selfish are they that only THEY matter..their angst..their feelings etc and so bang bang it should also be noted that America and China have exceeding large population and visible success is the desire in general of both societies..that in its self places a big burden on individuals western Europe..the middle east Africa etc etc all have their problems with inadequate young males which shows its self in different ways in their societies
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 4, 2015 4:28:07 GMT -5
It's a case of how many fatalities are too many? Clearly, the current rate is not too many. That is correct. Given the number of firearms in the United States, the rate of violence is extremely low. Mass shootings are part of the American culture. It's something we have to live with. to accept mass shootings as a cultural happening is insanity..when it isn't something any one should have to live with so the freedom of individuals to own and badly secure their guns is bought at the price of others losing their freedom to live ? sounds like a very poor argument to me...especially when a small legality could lessen the numbers killed and maimed...a small legality which would not impair on the right to own a weapon...or weapons [though why anyone would require an arsenal of weaponary doesn't exactly make sense]
|
|