No Guns, No Shootings

[bigrebnc1775]

Why does the police need to be armed better than the citizen militia?

Because some people believe the state should have a monopoly on force.

Some people think tyranny is a myth.

do you know why?...Because there is a defect in a lefties brain....it causes them to believe that history starts when they wake up in the morning, and resets when they go to sleep at night...and all those "stories" in history books...are just stories....

Sad thing about it Tyranny is not a myth.
“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”
― John Adams, The Works Of John Adams, Second President Of The United States

 

[Delta4Embassy]

There is about one gun per person in the United States, and the police legitimately need to be able to wield more force than the citizens they are policing. In America there are lots of guns, so the cops need lots of guns. Consequently, people get shot.

The big reason British cops don't shoot civilians is that cops in the United Kingdom don't have guns. If a special situation requiring firearms arises, the call is put out for a specially trained firearms unit. But an unarmed teenager shoplifting blunts doesn't make the cut, so unarmed teens don't get shot by British cops.

Obvious difference between the United States and countries with drastically lower rates of police killing and nobody is talking about it. That's very unlikely to change any time soon. But it ought to.

Short of a mass gun confiscation, US could never be policed as the UK is. So it's a pointless comparison to make. Besides, pleanty of places have guns legally or not, but not the same problem with violence we do. Our problems with violence are cultural, not legislative. Can pass all the news laws you like, all they're going to achieve though is creating new criminals. Gun-utilizing criminals by definition don't take any notice of gun bans and restrictions. So you're only ever punishing law-abidding citizens, in effect putting them at the mercy of hardened criminals who're gonna keep their banned weapons. Legal restrictions didn't help that woman in the department store despite it being a gun free zone.

Only thing to do is change the culture. Encourage pleasure-based pursuits and activities, quit glamourizing violent ones.

 

[Iceweasel]

Only thing to do is change the culture. Encourage pleasure-based pursuits and activities, quit glamourizing violent ones.

You don't think pleasure has been glamorized? And for some violence IS pleasure!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Only thing to do is change the culture. Encourage pleasure-based pursuits and activities, quit glamourizing violent ones.

You don't think pleasure has been glamorized? And for some violence IS pleasure!

Violence is: patriotic, brave, noble, honorable, just, etc.

Pleasure is: selfish, indulgent, sinful, gluttonous, slutty, etc.

We've reversed what should upset us in the US. We glamourize violence, we demonize pleasure.

 

[skookerasbil]

The OP is a mental case..........a typical Disney asshole controlled purely by his emotions.

The research pwns his ass on this..........research released last April by Harvard University was definitive >>>

MORE GUNS = LESS CRIMES

Its not even debatable..........far, far more murders in countries with gun bans,.

Harvard study concludes that gun control does not prevent murders other violent crime

 

[Roadrunner]

There is about one gun per person in the United States, and the police legitimately need to be able to wield more force than the citizens they are policing. In America there are lots of guns, so the cops need lots of guns. Consequently, people get shot.

The big reason British cops don't shoot civilians is that cops in the United Kingdom don't have guns. If a special situation requiring firearms arises, the call is put out for a specially trained firearms unit. But an unarmed teenager shoplifting blunts doesn't make the cut, so unarmed teens don't get shot by British cops.

Obvious difference between the United States and countries with drastically lower rates of police killing and nobody is talking about it. That's very unlikely to change any time soon. But it ought to.

Short of a mass gun confiscation, US could never be policed as the UK is. So it's a pointless comparison to make. Besides, pleanty of places have guns legally or not, but not the same problem with violence we do. Our problems with violence are cultural, not legislative. Can pass all the news laws you like, all they're going to achieve though is creating new criminals. Gun-utilizing criminals by definition don't take any notice of gun bans and restrictions. So you're only ever punishing law-abidding citizens, in effect putting them at the mercy of hardened criminals who're gonna keep their banned weapons. Legal restrictions didn't help that woman in the department store despite it being a gun free zone.

Only thing to do is change the culture. Encourage pleasure-based pursuits and activities, quit glamourizing violent ones.

Britain hanged people for everything from stealing a loaf of bread to trespassing for over 500 years.

What that did not eliminate from the gene pool got shipped to Australia.

No way to compare GB with GOUSA.

 

[Vandalshandle]

There is about one gun per person in the United States, and the police legitimately need to be able to wield more force than the citizens they are policing. In America there are lots of guns, so the cops need lots of guns. Consequently, people get shot.

The big reason British cops don't shoot civilians is that cops in the United Kingdom don't have guns. If a special situation requiring firearms arises, the call is put out for a specially trained firearms unit. But an unarmed teenager shoplifting blunts doesn't make the cut, so unarmed teens don't get shot by British cops.

Obvious difference between the United States and countries with drastically lower rates of police killing and nobody is talking about it. That's very unlikely to change any time soon. But it ought to.

Short of a mass gun confiscation, US could never be policed as the UK is. So it's a pointless comparison to make. Besides, pleanty of places have guns legally or not, but not the same problem with violence we do. Our problems with violence are cultural, not legislative. Can pass all the news laws you like, all they're going to achieve though is creating new criminals. Gun-utilizing criminals by definition don't take any notice of gun bans and restrictions. So you're only ever punishing law-abidding citizens, in effect putting them at the mercy of hardened criminals who're gonna keep their banned weapons. Legal restrictions didn't help that woman in the department store despite it being a gun free zone.

Only thing to do is change the culture. Encourage pleasure-based pursuits and activities, quit glamourizing violent ones.

While I agree with a lot of your post, I do not think that it is an unworthy goal to make it impossible for someone to legally sell John Hinckley, who is now walking the streets, a gun. A universal mandatory background check would make a criminal out of whoever did that.

 

[Steinlight]

Why does the Left think gun control will be effective where the drug war was not?

 

[Geaux4it]

The left just want more laws on the books. Regardless of their effectiveness

-Geaux

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

England? England? Isn't that the country whose ass we saved twice with all our nasty guns?

 

[hjmick]

There is about one gun per person in the United States, and the police legitimately need to be able to wield more force than the citizens they are policing. In America there are lots of guns, so the cops need lots of guns. Consequently, people get shot.

The big reason British cops don't shoot civilians is that cops in the United Kingdom don't have guns. If a special situation requiring firearms arises, the call is put out for a specially trained firearms unit. But an unarmed teenager shoplifting blunts doesn't make the cut, so unarmed teens don't get shot by British cops.

Obvious difference between the United States and countries with drastically lower rates of police killing and nobody is talking about it. That's very unlikely to change any time soon. But it ought to.

There is about one gun per person in the United States, and the police legitimately need to be able to wield more force than the citizens they are policing. In America there are lots of guns, so the cops need lots of guns. Consequently, people get shot.

The big reason British cops don't shoot civilians is that cops in the United Kingdom don't have guns. If a special situation requiring firearms arises, the call is put out for a specially trained firearms unit. But an unarmed teenager shoplifting blunts doesn't make the cut, so unarmed teens don't get shot by British cops.

Obvious difference between the United States and countries with drastically lower rates of police killing and nobody is talking about it. That's very unlikely to change any time soon. But it ought to.

You, like so many who share your beliefs, are quite the simpleton. First, I guarantee you that the first time you need the protection of a police officer and his or her sidearm, they will be along about fifteen, or more, minutes after the fact. What you and so many others seemingly fail to recognize it this: the primary job of the police is not to protect, but to serve and investigate. The protect part comes when they make an arrest of a criminal who has already committed a crime. They are "protected" society from any further abuse by that criminal. Now, I am not saying that people who possess a gun are any more or less likely to prevent themselves from becoming victims. What I am saying is, the idea of relying on the police for help and/or protection at the time you need them is ludicrous.

As for your contention that the police have a legitimate "need to be able to wield more force than the citizens they are policing?" Are you out of your fucking mind?

 

[2aguy]

While I agree with a lot of your post, I do not think that it is an unworthy goal to make it impossible for someone to legally sell John Hinckley, who is now walking the streets, a gun. A universal mandatory background check would make a criminal out of whoever did that.

Well, using John hinckley is an interesting tactic......considering this guy was caught trying to shoot a President of the United States, in fact shot him and James Brady, was shown to actually be nuts.....and they have allowed him the ability to walk freely among us....having had a judge increase his freedom of movement as recently as 2011....and the anti gunners think that new laws regarding the mental health checks added to back ground checks will help keep guns out of this guys hands if he really wants one....

Interesting concept...considering a deranged shooter can't even be kept off the streets after he actually shot two people.....

Liberals think funny......

but you can bet that the average, law abiding citizen who sees a grief counselor after a member of their family dies will be red flagged and denied their right to own and carry guns....and you know what....that law abiding citizen will actually comply with the law......that will be considered a win by the anti gun nuts.....

If hinckley wants a gun....he just needs to buy some illegal drugs, and follow that source to buy an illegal gun....and no background check or gun registration will catch him....

 

[M14 Shooter]

While I agree with a lot of your post, I do not think that it is an unworthy goal to make it impossible for someone to legally sell John Hinckley, who is now walking the streets, a gun.

It can never be legal to sell him a gun as federal law already prohibits it.
And so, you already have what you want.

 

[theHawk]

The numbers I have a problem with...the anti gunners always say our murder rate is one of the highest in the industrial world....but that number 8-9,000 lacks context, other than when they compare us to different societies.....

For actual context...

8-9,000 gun murders each year....

Number of people now living in America....310 million....

310 million guns in America....(May be higher)

1.6 million times a year guns are used to save lives and stop violent criminal attack....

number of gun owners....may be around 40 million....

So in the actual context of our country...8-9,000 murders, though tragic, is not even a blip on our radar...sad but true....

And compared to 1.6 million lives saved and violent criminal attacks stopped....8-9,000 gun murders are really insignificant in the overall picture of gun ownership in the U.S....

Not to mention the vast majority of that gun violence is committed by blacks and hispanics on blacks and hispanics. These liberals always try to compare US statistics to places like Germany, not taking into account Germany does not have tens of millions of minorities that turn major cities into gangland ruins and slums.