Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Guns and weapons for the cops, why not.Take away our guns, why not.
Powerless people against Militarized Police Force.
Anyone denying whats going on is aloof. Watch the news with the police killing everyone...or have we forgotten whats been happening the last 6 months.
Its pretty funny everyone here is bickering against gun ownership for private citizens but think the police brutality is just gonna go away.
They also seem to think that if guns are banned that the criminals are going to abide by the law and surrender their guns just like all the law-abiding citizens would. LOL. Then again, what do you expect from all the naive sheep on this board? Like I've said before, they're living in la la land.
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
And if you take away the guns then people will kill regardless or start killing with knives, or more brutal ways.
Well if knives are so great then we have nothing to fear from the government if they take away your guns. 🙂
Guns are leagues more effective and efficient. People are more likely to survive a mass stabbing than a mass shooting. Also the idea that if you can't get rid of all violent crime then you shouldn't bother is flawed.
In 2007, California became the first jurisdiction in the nation to require handgun microstamping and, in 2014, was the first to enact a Gun Violence Restraining Order law to help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.
Over the last twenty years, the number of people injured or killed by guns in California has decreased dramatically. In 1993, 5,500 Californians were killed by gunfire; by 2010, the most recent year for which data is available, that number had dropped to 2,935.3 In just two decades, the state’s gun death rate has been cut by 56%, a reduction that translates to thousands of lives saved every single year.
Originally posted by SayWhatSource?
In 2007, California became the first jurisdiction in the nation to require handgun microstamping and, in 2014, was the first to enact a Gun Violence Restraining Order law to help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.Over the last twenty years, the number of people injured or killed by guns in California has decreased dramatically. In 1993, 5,500 Californians were killed by gunfire; by 2010, the most recent year for which data is available, that number had dropped to 2,935.3 In just two decades, the state’s gun death rate has been cut by 56%, a reduction that translates to thousands of lives saved every single year.
I like the idea of microstamping, the bullets can be traced back to the perp. Otherwise I generally agree that folks that are mature should be allowed to use commonsense when it comes to SYG. I feel Trayvon did himself a huge disservice to physically attack GZ, especially in Florida a SYG state. You never know who is packing, so best not be a bully; I know thugs like Travyon and Michael Brown did not understand that, maybe because of their immaturity and ignorance that others will protect themselves, especially the cops.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Well obviously if you make something illegal theres more crime because now theres more things that are illegal.And there aren't many "gun wars" in countries that have strict gun control that I know of.
Thats because many countries don't make the amount of guns that US does. Also many of the countries have never been to as many wars and conflicts so there is not a excessive amount.
Originally posted by SayWhatDope.
http://smartgunlaws.org/the-california-model-twenty-years-of-putting-safety-first/
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Anyways, if we wanna talk about guns, we got a gun thread. Otherwise the election thread will be about guns only. As of now, none of the candidates have said they are going to try and take them away.
It's obvious to me that Hillary wouldn't hesitate to sign any anti-gun laws considering her obviously socialistic statements. But, you're right. This is not the thread to continue that discussion.
Stating the obvious, I know. But if Clinton does become president, the GOP hate-n-smear machine will go all the way up to eleven and we'll see bitterness and disrespect that will topple what we've already witnessed with Obama. Can only imagine the blocking that will happen in the senate during her term(s).
Originally posted by Robtard
Stating the obvious, I know. But if Clinton does become president, the GOP hate-n-smear machine will go all the way up to eleven and we'll see bitterness and disrespect that will topple what we've already witnessed with Obama. Can only imagine the blocking that will happen in the senate during her term(s).
👆
Yeah, you know, instead of at least trying to work together and get shit done for the greater good of the nation (like you were appointed to do).
Originally posted by Robtard
Stating the obvious, I know. But if Clinton does become president, the GOP hate-n-smear machine will go all the way up to eleven and we'll see bitterness and disrespect that will topple what we've already witnessed with Obama. Can only imagine the blocking that will happen in the senate during her term(s).
Frankly, is there any Democrat that wouldn't apply to?
Any of them are too liberal/too socialist/whatever, regardless of their stances.
I mean, I guess ones who aren't white males get it worse... but 'what the popular vote reflects' doesn't seem to make much dent in how legitimate Republicans find a Democratic candidate (i.e. they don't).
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Well look at drugs. Making drugs illegal causes more crime then legalization which is one reason why weed is being legalized everywhere. Guns are already legal. Making them illegal will not stop anything but great gun wars like we already have drug wars.
It's a bit different. Drugs are a problem because they fund crime. The drugs themselves are only indirectly the problem in general, and making them legal and regulated can reduce the problem.
Every country that restricts guns has way less gun crime. Australia did and things got better.
The Onion says it well:
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
Though frankly I'd be happy if we simply gave enforcement more power- The ATF is woefully restricted in tracking who's selling guns illegally, they cannot even require stores to give yearly inventories, and in truth on average they only manage to check inventories something like once per decade per store on average... even though reports indicate 80% of guns used in crime come from under 5% of stores. A real 'a few ruining it for everyone' situation.
It's like, give the ATF more resources (physical and legally) and gun crime could get reduced significantly even before going into heavier stuff.
Originally posted by Q99
Frankly, is there any Democrat that wouldn't apply to?Any of them are too liberal/too socialist/whatever, regardless of their stances.
I mean, I guess ones who aren't white males get it worse... but 'what the popular vote reflects' doesn't seem to make much dent in how legitimate Republicans find a Democratic candidate (i.e. they don't).
(And as an interesting sidenote, the last three Republican presidents have been fake cowboys--Regan being an actor and the Bushes being New Englanders pretending to be Texans)
Originally posted by Q99
Frankly, is there any Democrat that wouldn't apply to?Any of them are too liberal/too socialist/whatever, regardless of their stances.
I mean, I guess ones who aren't white males get it worse... but 'what the popular vote reflects' doesn't seem to make much dent in how legitimate Republicans find a Democratic candidate (i.e. they don't).
In today's political environment? Can't say for certain.
I know Bill Clinton didn't get Obama's treatment and I suspect Hillary will get it even worse should she become the first female President. Even during Monicagate there was still some level of respect for the Office.