Since the Connecticut massacre, 500 more Americans have died by gunshot. By accident or design. Happy Christmas for a lot of people.
What a nation of whinging cowards you are.
...and yet again, the UK is ranked number two in world crime and here you are still envious of US. LMFAO!
You are full of crap. It happens there too.
The Dunblane school massacre occurred at Dunblane Primary School in the Scottish town of Dunblane on 13 March 1996. The gunman,
43-year-old Thomas Hamilton (b. 10 May 1952), entered the school armed with four handguns, shooting and killing sixteen children and one adult before committing suicide. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre and the 2010 Cumbria shootings, it remains one of the deadliest criminal acts involving firearms in the history of the United Kingdom.
Don't confuse the idiot with facts. His invidious ego is incapable of such data.
Well, clearly NOT in the mind of stupid gun controllers Apparently their fantasy is that anyone carrying in school would be walking around with one hand on the butt of the gun, constantly scanning everyone around them. Reminds me of the "Jake" the Jack Elam character in Support your local sherrif.
After Newtown, another 20 kids were killed in cars by the following Tuesday but I don't see anyone banning cars. It didn't even make the news
No, but what you do see is this:
1) To legally drive a car, you must have a valid driver's license. That alone doesn't stop someone from getting in a car and driving it, but police with probable-cause can stop any car and ask to see if the driver is licensed. There will be legal and financial consequences if the driver is not licensed. These consequences will be significant if property dammage, injury or death of a person is involved.2) To operate a motor vehicle, the vehicle must be insured against property dammage and personal injury. That alone doesn't stop someone from getting in a car and driving it, but police with probable-cause can stop any car and ask to see if the car is insured. There will be legal and financial consequences if the car is not insured. These consequences will be significant if property dammage, injury or death of a person is involved.
3) The safety of cars, like many consumer products, are constantly being improved with the application of technology and gov't mandates. The design of the occupant compartment, air bags, ABS brakes, stability control, etc.4) If an injury or death happens as a result of some deficiency or fault in a consumer product (such as a car), the manufacturer can be held liable by a court of law.
Now tell me if any of the above applies to personal firearms, their owners, and the companies that make them.
I respect your opinion, but I fear it's based on ignorance. Please allow me to illustrate:
You might as well say banning weapons that shoot lightning-bolts should be banned, because there is no such thing as a civilian "assault weapon." If you doubt that statement, I await your definition of "assault weapon."
In 1994, Congress DID (try to) define a civilian "assault weapon," or tried to. Here's their definition: Any weapon with a detachable magazine AND two or more of the following:
- Folding or adjustable stock
- Pistol grip
- Bayonet mount
- Flash suppressor
- Grenade launcher
Can you imagine anything sillier? Every weapon falling into the defined catagory could be made compliant with nothing more than a hacksaw (to remove the bayonet mount). And they were.
A subsequent follow-up on the crime rate, after ten years of the ban showed NO change in the crime rate.
Anyway, give me YOUR definition of a civilian "assault weapon" or "assault-type weapon" and we can have a meaningful conversation.
Go ahead - let's chat. But, again, the first thing I want to hear is what you might consider an "assault weapon" and why.
Thanks in advance.
You mean like Mexico?
Laxity of gun control has little to do with mayhem caused by firearms. For every country with lax gun control and many deaths, I can respond with a country with lax control and few deaths. Likewise, the reverse.
Nope. In my state every commercial establishment, by state law, is a "gun friendly" zone, unless the owner posts a sign declaring concealed weapons prohibited.
Best legal thinking is to post no sign at all, either prohibiting or encouraging gun carry. Here's why. If you post a "no guns" sign, you are implicitly taking responsibility for your patrons. If a person who normally carrys a gun leaves his in the car, trusting you to protect him, and a bad thing happens, YOU, the owner, will be hit by such legal damage claims, you'll be reduced to operating a hot-dog cart. Conversely, if you erect a sign encouraging gun carry and something goes amiss, you'll be accused of encouraging the violence by the welcoming sign.
No, the best legal thinking is no sign or policy at all.
In my state less than 1% of the publically available enterprises. In my state, we can carry a firearm into the state Capitol, the governor's office, and, by law, any entity owned or leased by any agency of government except schools. These include libraries, water treatment plants, city hall, and everything else a city, county, mosquito control district, etc. Further, this includes public hospitals.
Could be because of our 2nd Amendment which says "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Note that amendment does not include toasters.
Message to all the Canadians posting on this web site:
Let's just stay out of any debate on guns. This is a US problem (for the most part) and it needs a US solution.
As far as I'm concerned, guns are the same as capital punishment and abortion. They're a social issue with no good solution. Arguing with someone about any of these topics isn't going to change their minds, it's only going to raise your blood pressure.
Which, of course, brings it back to gun violence being substantially more society-driven.
A person who shoots someone could be sued. Anyone who buys a machine gun or wants to carry a gun jumps through hoops that make a driver's license trivial, in fact you usually need a driver's license or other state issued ID to buy a gun from a dealer.
Certainly if you buy a gun on the street, there is no real regulation but there is also a very brisk market in stolen cars. It is probably the most stolen thing in the US by dollar amount.
Why is that important to this discussion? In the last 2 shooting, the guns were stolen, not purchased by the shooter. In the drug culture, where most of the murders occur, virtually all of the guns are stolen or bought in the black market. If you think a ban would stop that, just think about what these people do for a living, smuggle and sell tons of stuff from South America. That is a place that the US and the Soviets has flooded with real automatic weapons (not the sanitized SAs we have here). Do we really want them to look there for their guns?
Philly has the world's problem solved:
I don't see the connection.
Er we are discussing gun crime.
But none since handguns were banned. Note that both of these massacres were carried out by legal owners of handguns.
Which just goes to show that gun owners are mentally unbalanced.
You don't see because you are stupid.
The ones killed in cars was by accident. Newtown was deliberate.
Well go ahead then. How about...Japan?
That's the whole point my friend, you don't see. I do feel sorry for you. O_o
TDD
Are the kids any less dead?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.