Visualizing gun deaths – Comparing the U.S. to rest of the world

How do you do better than a weapons qualification?

 

Go ahead and post the number of the post where I said that. And please post the stat that you think is the most important along with documentation as to the source.

 

Really? Violent crime of all kinds is on a downward trend. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22275280

 

I agree that freedom is important, but the gun laws were written by the founding fathers of the US, hundreds of years ago, when people lived in a much less civilised place compared to the world we live in today. At that time, people still needed guns to fend against wild animals, not just people. Also, back then, the guns they used were muskets, only able to fire one shot before requiring a reload. Nowadays, people have semi-automatic pistols, allowing them to mass murder in moments. I don't think that was what the founding fathers intended when they put the law in place. Occasionally, laws do need to be reviewed and even changed. I think the gun law is definitely a law in need of change.

 

What would you change in the vetting/qualification process? Be specific.

- - - Updated - - -

Tighten what up? What do you want to see changed? Be specific.

- - - Updated - - -

All of what?

 

Is the Right really that clueless and that Causeless. It may give the perception (to some on the left) that externalities to the concept of lucre based markets may be beyond the current evolutionary coping skills of the right.

How do you do better than a weapons qualification for concealed carry?

 

Douc*es are douc*es, with a beretta they are dangerous, with an assault rifle they are so much more dangerous. A mass shooter with a pistol with limited bullet possession ( let's suppose the law consents just 1 clip per gun ) can kill some people, with much ammo and 2 pistols he can kill much more. Simple logic.

 

Do you know what is also "simple logic"?

The fact that a person who is going to murder multiple innocent people in cold blood doesn't care whether or not you write a law saying that he can only carry one magazine, or X number of bullets, or only one gun.

 

A gun control freak with limited mental capacity is also a lot less dangerous to freedom. Just sayin.

 

you seem ignorant that some weapons are more effective in certain environments than others. BTW if you call it a clip you prove you don't understand the terms. How is someone with 50 guns more dangerous than one guy with one gun that is chosen for the environment

A mass shooter armed with a heavy battle rifle is going to be spotted by authorities quickly

a guy who walks into a crowded mall with a pistol will not be seen until he starts killing

you don't seem to understand the concept of carrying extra magazines

or how does 8 pistols become more "dangerous" than 2 pistols with 8 mags (which are much easier to conceal)

if the law prevents me from carrying more than one mag, and I obey it, then I won't be shooting anyone illegally

I guess you cannot figure that If I choose to murder, I probably don't care what the Law CONSENTS whatever that means (31 years as an attorney, never heard that phrase)

 

How is 1 pistol with 1 max ownable magazine ( let's say 8 bullets ) as dangerous as multiple firearms with as many bullets as i want? If the guy has bad aim there's also chance that nobody dies in the shooting. How many people who committed mass murderer were aided by the fact that they can own as many guns as they wish, and tons of ammo too. Owning multiple weapons and magazines should be illegal, me thinks. Self defense, because that's the main reason why someone purchases a gun, doesn't require an arsenal.

 

your scenario is based on the incredibly unrealistic silliness that someone willing to kill others will obey a weapons restrictions or that a country that is flooded with crack and crank and smack and weed, will be able to somehow drying up over a billion normal capacity magazines that will still be bought in large quantities by cops and the military even if your dream of a complete gun ban for non government employees is passed

why should people who want to participate in multiple shooting sports have their hobbies banned just so ignorant gun haters can pretend they have done something. HOw many mass killers have more than a couple weapons anyway?

 

The law isn't there for nothing. If they say you can buy just 1 magazine along with your personal defense tool they you have to own just 1 and no more, every extra one you buy is illegal and you become persecutable by the law. Yes the state should have so much power to meticolously check all weapons and ammo that are sold.

As for shooting sports, well i think that in the name of the greater good they should be banned. It's not about trolling, it is just that it is dangerous to let a civilian own so much weapons and ammo, just for hobby, i think the inherent potential risk is not worth it.

 

Since im on a cell from memory you disagreed witg post 202. Youre the gun grabber not me therefore the onus is on you to provide the stats backing up your gun grabbing ideology. Im still waiting.

 

In 18th century political discourse, "free state" was a well-understood political term of art, meaning "free country," which is to say the opposite of a despotism.

Political theory of the era often divided the world into despotisms and free states (either republics or constitutional monarchies). Free states had certain properties as a result of their being free, and were susceptible to certain threats of reverting to despotism. To remain a free state, the free state had to take these threats into account, and to structure its institutions in a particular way.

"State" simply meant country; and "free" almost always meant free from despotism, not from some other country, and never from some larger entity in a federal structure. That is how the phrase was used in the sources that the Framers read. And there is no reason to think that the Framers departed from this well-established meaning, and used the phrase to mean something different from what it meant to Blackstone, Montesquieu, the Continental Congress, Madison, Adams, or others.

Even given this truth, of course, many important arguments about the nature of the Second Amendment remain. But when we consider those arguments, we should recognize that the phrase "a free State" was not understood as having to do with states' rights as such, but rather as having to do with preserving the liberty of the new country that the Constitution was establishing.

 

Let the experts figure that out. I have some ideas, but they won't necessarily become policy/law.

My primary point is to say that things are NOT as good as they could/will be. The notion that America has reached the pinnacle of excellence or efficacy about all of this, is simply unrealistic.

 

Exactly. Clear and decent logic.

But in the current era (this generation), many basic and good ideas are dismissed by those who benefit from hyping fear and hysteria. MORE guns, MORE bullets, BIGGER arsenal... is primarily what they advocate and approve of, when in reality that has become more dangerous and far from truly necessary.

 

So reasonable. Bravo!

 

I can see what you're saying. But some people believe they should be able to own whatever they want and as much as they want. (I know that is not prudent or necessarily sane.)

 

I would rather go with this version for ease of understanding:

 

People's right to bear arms is also an infringement of other people's right to be alive, when those people with arms become careless. Pretty straight, yet not an easy matter to solve. Someone could say that for example the swiss own as much weapons pro capita as americans do and have very little shootings, but let's not forget that switzerland is an extremely small country compared to the vast and heterogeneous usa.

 

Is there a problem with legal concealed carry? IIRC, the stats per capita for violent crime committed by CCW permit holders is lower than that of police officers. CCW permits in most states require a moderate amount of money ($100-$200), fingerprints, background check and a gun safety course. Please show me where you can find a study that says that's not sufficient. Or in other words, give a real data based (not knee jerk opinions) of why CCW permits should be tightened up.

- - - Updated - - -

From what I can get, "wellness of regulation" relates to "a well regulated militia."

 

We still have a Second Amendment.

 

perhaps, but why cannot someone who has posted on this board and others, not use the same language everyone else does?

 

Yes, and Not only that; but, it Must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.