That's crappy American gun logic though. A terror attack is such a rare occurrence in the developed world that the odds of you getting shot in one is much lower than are the odds of you injuring or killing yourself with the gun you keep for protection from terrorists.
European countries don't respond like this to this sort of thing. They ask "how the hell did that guy get a gun?" and "why weren't the police quicker to respond?" They don't say "man if only those victims all had guns" because that isn't a reasonable expectation in Europe and it shouldn't be here. We shouldn't aspire to create a country where everyone has a gun at all times--that will lead to more gun violence, not less.
Originally posted by Omega VisionYeah I agree military personal on military should all probably be allowed to carry weapons.
Military bases are one of the few places where guns should unquestionably be allowed, but I do think it's worth considering if there need to be as many civilian guns as there are.
Still the question becomes would that have stopped the shooter before injuring or killing anyone. Probably not.
On the subject of gun control, people really do seem to leap to "any control = taking our guns away."
How about just better background checks, and better checking of gun inventory?
I've read studies that around 90% of illegal guns from 5% of gun stores... but the ATF isn't allowed to check store inventories often (aren't allowed to even ask stores to self-sumbit inventories!), and they're so underfunded it's often once per decade, which is, of course, nigh-useless.
We could do a lot without even touching who's currently allowed to have guns, simply by giving the ATF more to work with.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I haven't heard him say anything about gun control oddly enough. However this happened in a gun free zone of Tennessee. I don't know why these gaurds did not have guns though. As this was a military facility.
Guns are banned at recruitment offices specifically.
I'm guessing there's some history behind that, like people bringing their own guns and causing incidents. Or maybe it affected recruitment rates, made things too intimidating for newbies.
Originally posted by Q99
On the subject of gun control, people really do seem to leap to "any control = taking our guns away."How about just better background checks, and better checking of gun inventory?
I've read studies that around 90% of illegal guns from 5% of gun stores... but the ATF isn't allowed to check store inventories often (aren't allowed to even ask stores to self-sumbit inventories!), and they're so underfunded it's often once per decade, which is, of course, nigh-useless.
We could do a lot without even touching who's currently allowed to have guns, simply by giving the ATF more to work with.
Guns are banned at recruitment offices specifically.
I'm guessing there's some history behind that, like people bringing their own guns and causing incidents. Or maybe it affected recruitment rates, made things too intimidating for newbies.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's crappy American gun logic though. A terror attack is such a rare occurrence in the developed world that the odds of you getting shot in one is much lower than are the odds of you injuring or killing yourself with the gun you keep for protection from terrorists.
Very true, but on the positive side, it would Darwin-out the weak from the herd.
How about just better background checks, and better checking of gun inventory?
Originally posted by psmith81992
My dad is an avid gun collector and his argument always stems on the idea of gun owners being put on a government watch list. It's not paranoid it's what's going to happen. He has a point. But I agree on background checks and everything mentioned. But we should also look to the Swiss and Israelis where the majority of homes have weapons and we can look at their firearm violence rates as an example responsible gun owners.
No one should be entitled to a gun, it should be a privilege earned by demonstrating you're a sane, upstanding, emotionally-mature person who understands proper safety and doesn't treat a gun like a toy. Something like a bar exam but for gun ownership instead of practicing law.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's crappy American gun logic though. A terror attack is such a rare occurrence in the developed world that the odds of you getting shot in one is much lower than are the odds of you injuring or killing yourself with the gun you keep for protection from terrorists.European countries don't respond like this to this sort of thing. They ask "how the hell did that guy get a gun?" and "why weren't the police quicker to respond?" They don't say "man if only those victims all had guns" because that isn't a reasonable expectation in Europe and it shouldn't be here. We shouldn't aspire to create a country where everyone has a gun at all times--that will lead to more gun violence, not less.
So why don't you tell us what county you live in so we can look up some facts on its problems?
Originally posted by psmith81992
My dad is an avid gun collector and his argument always stems on the idea of gun owners being put on a government watch list. It's not paranoid it's what's going to happen. He has a point. But I agree on background checks and everything mentioned. But we should also look to the Swiss and Israelis where the majority of homes have weapons and we can look at their firearm violence rates as an example responsible gun owners.
Note that the Swiss do not let people have ammo at home, you need to go to a gun range or such. So, sure, everyone has guns, but there's still much greater control.
I don't know Israel's setup, but the Swiss certainly have a lot more controls than we do, just from another angle.
I don't know Israel's setup, but the Swiss certainly have a lot more controls than we do, just from another angle.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya. What do we do if it was ISIS? Nothing is what this administration will do. Talk, talk, talk...
Why would this administration be able to do more than damage control? What happened to those Marines, would have been far less likely if gun control laws were much tighter. Or, if civilians were prohibited from carrying fire arms entirely. Doing anything about it, or making positive headway would be much like attempting to bail water out of a tub, while the faucet is on full blast.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
In those cases, guns are actually respected and seen as something necessary. Here they're fetishized and treated as a natural right, which I think is all kinds of wrong.No one should be entitled to a gun, it should be a privilege earned by demonstrating you're a sane, upstanding, emotionally-mature person who understands proper safety and doesn't treat a gun like a toy. Something like a bar exam but for gun ownership instead of practicing law.
That could actually work, but I think that it would be better if civilians were prohibited from carrying guns. No matter how responsible a person is, there would still be a possibility that a firearm could find its way into the hands of the less responsible. If no one had guns, many problems would be solved. it would take a while for things to settle down, but they eventually would. Other countries function fine without its civilians being born with the right to bare arms.
but I think that it would be better if civilians were prohibited from carrying guns.
If no one had guns, many problems would be solved.
Other countries function fine without its civilians being born with the right to bare arms.
Really, UK, Australia, Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, etc. don't have a lot of guns, and the Swiss as mentioned don't have ammo... and I'm not sure what problems they're supposed to have gotten in return.
Civilians having guns are almost no threat to the government nowadays, they can't fight militaries. Countries without guns function peaceful and successfully for prolonged periods of time no problem, and with no more encroaching 'dystopia' than the US.
Originally posted by psmith81992
THey, like the Israelis, have a culture of responsible gun owning. The Israelis don't have restrictions on ammo I believe but their gun violence has been at a minimum for the past 50 years. I guess it helps having a common enemy.
See, I don't see how we're going to get that without something like mandatory gun training courses.
And I checked- Israel has mandatory licenses before you can own a gun. It's not considered a right there.
You pretty much only get a license if you work in security, law enforcement, are a former military officer- past a certain rank- or live in certain areas.
Then when they get a gun, they get 50 bullets with it, no renewels on that.
They must re-test for qualification every three years, and must have a safe at home.
So yes, they have guns... but they also have gun restrictions left and right. It's not just responsible gun culture, but enforced responsible gun culture.
That also rather demonstrates gun regulation is not all-or-nothing, as much as some treat it like it is. Personally I believe putting in more requirements ensuring responsible ownership is probably the best way to prevent a general ban, but this 'no restrictions period' some have, leaves us stuck in the situation that produces these shooting incidents and leaves much of the country wondering if guns are worth it.
Well said, psmith. I'm glad you're not like the naive majority on this forum and understand the importance of our 2nd amendment right to bear arms. That law is just as relevant today as when our forefathers created it. 👆
I was about ready to throw up at all these peoples' repeated suggestions of taking away our only means of defending ourselves.
I've also posted a link in the "Bad Ammo" thread while back that showed what has happened time and again to people of countries who've had their guns taken away but, of course, the sheep on this forum either ignored it or basically claimed the guy who wrote article was lying. LOL. They don't like anybody posting proof that their ideas are, in fact, very bad.
Originally posted by Star428
I was about ready to throw up at all these peoples' repeated suggestions of taking away our only means of defending ourselves.
From what? What do civilian guns actually protect us again?
I mean, they don't protect us from the military- that'd be hilariously outsided, and the military are us, last time I checked. They don't protect us from the police. And they certainly don't protect us from mass shooters or people like this.
Who are they protecting us from exactly? And why aren't police and military being counted as 'us' in this context? Because I think everyone agrees they still get to keep guns, and again, they are us.
As Switzerland and Israel shows, there's plenty that can be done to make things muuuch safer without getting rid of guns.
As the Onion says, "No Way To Prevent This," Says only nation where this happens
We don't actually seem to be gaining much from this deal. We aren't any freer than our friendly nations who have rules on the subject (i.e. all of our friends. Every last one of them. Every single other 1st world country), we don't seem in the slightest bit more protected from anyone.