On one hand, you're right: Another innocent loses their life because Americans have handguns. On the other hand: You don't live here and our problem with guns doesn't, in any way, affect your life. Stay the hell out of our business and we'll stay out of yours.
(worldcensus) ... showed that as of mid-2013, there were 53,900,000 people living in England.
You cannot compare anything that happens in this Country to yours, which only has about 1/5 the number of people. You also don't have 11 million invaders living in your Country. You also have fewer transportation inlets which can allow terrorist access to your little island.
Sorry, I said I'd keep out of your business ... but it's so small!
If you act like idiots, we're going to point it out.
You be sure to do that. But in this case, we aren't. What you will never hear, because our news agencies (and yours) tend to shy away from good news, is the number of crimes that are prevented by gun owners. News agencies like to point out the dangers of having guns, so you hear all those stories. It can't be coincidence that I, personally, know three people who've fended off a criminal with their handgun ... two who did so just by showing said gun to the criminal. If I know of three ... how many others are out there that go unreported?
It's all well and good to say, "let's just outlaw guns." However, it's unrealistic. 1) With the "love affair" we have with guns, there are just too many out there. 2) Even if the government outlawed them, no one would willingly give them up. 3) At this moment, starting next month (7/15/2015), the American Government is starting a military joint exercise called "Jade-Helm-15". In several States, they have closed Walmart Stores and are using the space to amass military equipment. The premise of the exercise is to prepare the military for "urban set up and combat." There are currently trains of box cars with shackles on the inside, traveling across America. 4) One of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment is to protect ourselves if the government gets to thinking it's a dictatorship. If someone comes to take my guns, I will not let them in the house. As has been Quoted before, "They can have my guns, when they pry them from my cold, dead hands."
Re: Okay ... off the debate horse and onto reality.
There are no serious proposals to outlaw guns. More regulation is what is being advocated.
Okay ... maybe I'll concede part of this point. I have no problem with increasing wiat times or doing better background checks. The problem is our government is run on the "If they give us an inch, we'll take a mile" philosophy. You know they always try to over do it, to gain more control where possible. Where do the regulations stop?
Please provide you evidence the US Government closed WalMart stores to amass military equipment.
Army Lt. Col. Mark Lastoria, a USASOC spokesman, confirmed that there is an upcoming exercise called Jade Helm 15 which is scheduled to take place this summer at locations in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, California and Nevada.
4) One of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment is to protect ourselves if the government gets to thinking it's a dictatorship.
Provide relevant writings from the Founding Fathers to support this theory.
This was credited to Thomas Jefferson:
When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Although, it now seems this might not be a written quote ... it still rings true.
I am still sticking to my guns (pun intended) that gun ownership isn't the problem in this Country. The lack of proper gun education is. I would accept classes and licensing ... which, though offered, is not required in all States.
Re: Okay ... off the debate horse and onto reality.
First off ... my apologies. I did let myself be fooled by someone else's "research." Once I started looking into the "Walmart" part of the story for myself ... I found there was no actual pictures of military equipment in the stores. A guy, probably sleeping in the cab, with a few Humvees on the back of a flatbed, is no proof of anything. I am still not sure what the government agencies and military are doing with Jade-Helm 15. In my 12 years as a Marine, I NEVER trained anywhere but inside the boundaries of military bases. So, I've never been one to credit conspiracy theories and I am sorry for temporarily giving this one credence.
The problem is our government is run on the "If they give us an inch, we'll take a mile" philosophy.
No, that's not our government. That's the purely imaginary government that gun nuts have invented, so that they can have something to rail against.
Considering the number of entitlement programs ... and the constant drive to over-tax the very people who pay the most taxes already ... I will only trust the government when it starts reducing it's workforce and stops spending more than it takes in. Right now ... there is PLENTY to rail against in big government.
Re: Okay ... off the debate horse and onto reality.
You do realize that accusation is totally paranoid, and reeks of unthinking fear and unreasoning listening too right wing paranoia talk show radio.
I do not listen to the radio at all. I do not suffer from "unthinking fear and paranoia". I look at a government that is constantly spending money like it makes a profit on something. It doesn't. It's only "income" is taxes. So it keeps demanding more money for programs it can't afford to pay for. Forced charity ... it doesn't work, it's never worked and it won't work in our future. I don't trust any of the crooks in Washington, D.C. at this time ... they're all corrupt. That is reality ... not paranoia.
But it turns out that guns in the house is are more likely to hurt and kill people who belong in the house than they are to hurt and kill criminals. We cannot say the same thing about a car.
Sorry ... this is off topic, but I had to laugh at this. Really? Let's try. Modified to make sense ... your statement with "car" instead of "gun". "But it turns out that a car in the family is more likely to hurt and kill the people who belong in the car than it is to hurt and kill criminals."
Yeah ... we can say that. Cars, or rather, the people who drive cars while drunk, eating, texting and talking on a phone, are more likely to kill you than a responsible gun owner.
Responsible gun owners would want strong guns laws that keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible gun owners, they'd want safer guns, and they'd want effective answers to the problem of how one keeps a gun available for protection while making misuse and theft very unlikely.
And you are correct. The problem lies in, "how far" do we let the government go, in deciding gun laws? There are those who think the government is all-knowing and will only do things that are "good" for the people. But they proven, again and again, that they would rather over-regulate than under-regulate. They put riders on every bill that gets passed. They can't leave a simple law alone, and before you know it ... they are taking your liberties ... not protecting them.
Case in point ... any cigarette smokers here? How many live in cities that don't allow smoking, even in outdoor public spaces? How much do you pay for your smokes ... because they decided to make you pay more taxes to light up?
We don't argue against BETTER regulations ... we argue against run-away regulating.
In the real world, people's actions are motivated by their assessment of the likelihood of the consequences of their actions.
Really??? LOL Are you seriously pushing that point???
Drinking and driving. Texting and driving. Smoking. Eating foods known to cause bad health. Running across a street anywhere but the cross walk. Spending money you don't have, getting deeper and deeper in debt. Quitting a job because of anger without having another job to go to. Getting married without really knowing who you're marrying. (resulting in high divorce rates) Sleeping with partners without protection. Having children knowing you can't afford to bring them up. I could go on ... but the world over is rife with examples of people living out their lives without EVER considering the consequences of their actions.
I said that they didn't always weigh the consequences sensibly. But they are driven by consequences.
No ... you said ...
In the real world, people's actions are motivated by their assessment of the likelihood of the consequences of their actions. Sometimes they get that assessment wrong. Providing them with facts is the only way, or at least the only honest way, to help them to do it right.
Everything I listed is CONSTANTLY discussed on TV, in classrooms and through magazine and e-zine articles. Yet, everyday we see that all those educated people are still doing those actions. In the real world ... people don't even THINK of consequences, before OR after whatever actions they take. They're always SOOO surprised when they get caught, or someone shows up at their door with a baby. Their relatives are SOOO surprised that this happened. People are SOOO ticked off that a person is wrestled to the ground after being REPEATEDLY told by a police man to lie down. If they'd just done as told, they probably would've been let go after a few questions. They KNOW what's going to happen, and they still do the most stupid thing possible. People are idiots. And when one of those idiots tries to break into MY house, tries to hurt MY wife, that will be one more dead idiot. I will have no remorse in MY action, because I have trained and can use my weapon appropriately.
No-one has ever told me exactly how dangerous it is to jay-walk. I can't remember the last time someone told me the statistics associated with unprotected sex. Oh, and I only found out a few weeks ago that herpes is incurable.
Alright ... then I stand corrected. Jay-walking was taught to me in early times, and is, in fact taught to grade schoolers every year. So I am wrong that it's general knowledge. It's only knowledge to those who made it through grade school, I guess.
There are numerous commercials that talk about unprotected sex on the TV all the time. So, I guess I am wrong there, too. It's only common knowledge to those who pay attention to their world, and not just to themselves.
The fact that Herpes is incurable was taught to me in middle school, so I don't expect someone who didn't get through grade school to know middle school knowledge, my apologies. But it is on those commercials listed above, oh, never mind. I actually pass a billboard on I-4 about it, too ... do you drive a car?
I keep forgetting the Common Sense is lost on the faithful.
I know the dangers of owning a gun. I know that, in my hands, those dangers will be visited upon trespassers and criminals who endanger my home, wife and property. Where I live, it is a necessary home protection device. One I hope to never need, but will be grateful I have if it is needed.
Among recent participants, with the possible exception of MikeChell I think we all agree that the nation should make the same commitment to gun safety that's been made to car safety.
That's funny! But your comment shows that people will read what they WANT to, not the whole text. In my last comment, I said ...
Making firearm education more available, even requiring it, is a better option.
I have no problem with improving safety classes, education and licensing for gun ownership. I do take issue with people who assume my wife or I (who are both well trained and capable with our weapons) are less safe because we have them. I can GUARANTEE you that our names will never show up in the statistics of accidental discharge deaths or injuries. We can stop making the gun/car analogy, so let's talk about how safe Motorcycles are. Why not outlaw motorcycles and make everyone drive a car, which encases you and makes you oh so much safer?
Sorry, this is straying off course, but I feel it must be addressed.
the majority of all motorcycle deaths are caused by careless car drivers
This is an incorrect conclusion based on the accident scene. There are a number of reason why the car driver can be "faultless". From your linked stats ...
Motorcycle riders in these accidents showed significant collision avoidance problems. Most riders would over brake and skid the rear wheel, and under brake the front wheel greatly reducing collision avoidance deceleration. The ability to counter steer and swerve was essentially absent.
Again ... lack of proper training is more to blame. Those who complete advance riding classes are MUCH less likely to be involved in an accident.
Now ... I am an instructor at a national motorcycle school. From experience with hundreds of students over the past 18 years, and my own riding experiences, I can positively state that MANY of the accidents where a car has pulled out in front of a motorcycle, the car driver is NOT at fault. When you look both ways at an intersection in a 45 MPH zone, you instantly gauge the distance of any approaching vehicle, not the speed. If a vehicle is approaching at twice the posted speed limit (as I've seen more bikes do than cars) it doesn't register, and you pull out into your lane. The resulting accident is NOT your fault, but the fault of the bike rider who was doing 90 in a 45 zone. Because the bike could slow down, but not enough, it doesn't leave the skid marks a car would, so the car driver gets blamed.