What do we do to prevent another Las Vegas?

[Hank77]

Even so, people who break into houses are looking for stuff to steal, it's very rare that they're there to intentionally harm a stranger.

But they very often do harm other people whether that was their intention or not..

 

[Aldebaran]

Even so, people who break into houses are looking for stuff to steal, it's very rare that they're there to intentionally harm a stranger.

That may be their ultimate goal, while not caring one wit whether someone is home or not. If they are, they get shot. Why do you think armed home invasions happen? Why do you think burglars arm themselves before breaking in? It's because they want to steal stuff, but realize they might get caught in the act. Homeowners need to be armed themselves to protect themselves from people like that.
Let's also not forget about gang activity that involves killing for no logical reason at all.

 

[PeachyKeane]

because people are violent and use guns instead of words. I know that the places that have more LEGAL guns tend to have less crime. This applies both on the state and city level. Also poverty is linked to violence as well and poor people have guns and richer people have guns as was the case here.

That's only true in the US. Australia has far fewer legal guns, and less crime.

 

[PeachyKeane]

because people are violent and use guns instead of words. I know that the places that have more LEGAL guns tend to have less crime. This applies both on the state and city level. Also poverty is linked to violence as well and poor people have guns and richer people have guns as was the case here.

It's probably worth pointing out that some NFLers have been trying to resolve conflict using only symbolism. The President himself, and half the country has called for them to lose their jobs as a result.

Non-violent processes are not welcome here.

 

[Armoured]

That's only true in the US. Australia has far fewer legal guns, and less crime.

Do you think there might be a link there?

 

[Armoured]

But they very often do harm other people whether that was their intention or not..

Define "very often"? More often than, say, those "self defence" guns end up being used in domestic murder, suicide, or accident?

 

[dogs4thewin]

But they very often do harm other people whether that was their intention or not..

BUT you do have to be careful because depending on the laws in your state act too quickly you CAN get in trouble. If the person is ONLY committing a proper crime quite a few states say let it go or YOU do time.

 

[dogs4thewin]

That's only true in the US. Australia has far fewer legal guns, and less crime.

I wonder what the crime rate is in China or India?

 

[Barzel]

So what should we do? Remember, I have left resign ourselves to a similar attack in 6 months as an option.

I answered that question in the last three paragraphs of my post you quoted.

 

[PeachyKeane]

I wonder what the crime rate is in China or India?

Both seem to be quite a bit lower than ours.

 

[Aldebaran]

I asked you first.

I answered your question an hour ago. Are you now going to answer the questions I asked you?

 

[Hank77]

Define "very often"? More often than, say, those "self defence" guns end up being used in domestic murder, suicide, or accident?

Just because there are cons to gun ownership to be solved that doesn't invalidated the pros of gun ownership. Both are necessary for an honest discussion.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Yes.
Yes.

That's easy to say when you still have your life. I say pay the debt with your own blood if you believe in the cause so much.

I have no idea what they'd think. They're all individuals.

Some would probably call you a monster and tell you the same thing I just said. Pay the debt of liberty with your own blood, pal.

Your turn.

I'm not yet sure if that's a fair price to pay.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I answered your question an hour ago. Are you now going to answer the questions I asked you?

Geez, I didn't know I had a time limit to answer.

Some of us have lives outside of CF, you know...

 

[PeachyKeane]

I answered that question in the last three paragraphs of my post you quoted.

So just carry on as we've been carryin' on?

 

[Armoured]

Just because there are cons to gun ownership to be solved that doesn't invalidated the pros of gun ownership. Both are necessary for an honest discussion.

It's a simple cost/benefit analysis: more people are better off if we_________?

 

[Aldebaran]

That's easy to say when you still have your life. I say pay the debt with your own blood if you believe in the cause so much.

Some would probably call you a monster and tell you the same thing I just said. Pay the debt of liberty with your own blood, pal.

Now you're saying that if I believe gun ownership should be something we're free to enjoy, then I have to die right now. That's not the way it works though.

I'm not yet sure if that's a fair price to pay.

I meant it was your turn to answer my questions. Follow along!

 

[Aldebaran]

Geez, I didn't know I had a time limit to answer.

Some of us have lives outside of CF, you know...

I asked simple enough questions. You were certainly quick to point out that you asked me first, but it took an hour for you to actually come up with answers of your own. When you finally did, it turned out to not be worth the wait.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Both seem to be quite a bit lower than ours.

Reason I was wondering was that they have the 1 and 2 populations.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Keeping the comparisons within America, as gun ownership is rising, the homicide rate is going down.

Why must we keep it within America only?

Further, most American communities are very safe, with similar rates of murder as in other Western industrialized countries.

So why do we need so many guns? If we are as safe as other places with fewer guns, why are we told non-stop that we need guns to protect ourselves?

That is to say, cultural factors and social conditions play a much larger role in homicide and crime than gun ownership.

More guns in circulation = higher probability of gun access (whether through theft or misuse, etc.)

and all the rules in the world is not going to take guns out of the hands of criminals who do not follow the rules.

Love that argument. Since bad people will always do bad things why have any laws at all?

It does not just involve changing the make-up of the SCOTUS to bring in a different interpretation of the law.

We've gotten rid of other amendments, just an FYI. If the gun owners of America don't get their stuff together sooner or later these mass shootings will result in much less pleasant outcomes for those who love their guns. Do something now or just wait. See what people sufficiently fed up with the mealy mouthed responses do after a couple hundred more mass-shootings. Sooner or later the NRA will lose its grip on government officials.

At this point in the game those people who truly value their guns will have to agree to some things or it will be much worse for them in the future. They have to agree to be on a registry so we know who has the guns. They need to agree to aggressive background checks. They need to agree to restrictions on their guns in many more invasive means.

And they need to PAY for their guns. They need to pay surcharges on each gun and ammunition purchase to pay for mental healthcare improvements and first responders who deal with the aftermath of countless mass shootings.

Pay up one way or another. Americans may like their guns but I doubt they will put up with this stupidity forever. Think strategically or face much worse consequences later on.

It is an entirely different process to scrap chunks of the constitution.

Been done before.

It is not even a practical solution. Rationality ought to have some deference to what is possible in the real world, otherwise it is all just a pipe dream.

We don't NEED a Second Amendment interpreted as broadly as ours is interpreted and not everyone agrees that it applies to private ownership in the way we hold it.