Stunned by massacre, U.S. students demand tighter gun controls

[ELVIS123456]

23 hours ago, DM07 said:

If I hear/read this moronic "cars= guns+- BS one more time, I am gonna scoop my eyeballs out with a rusty spoon!

<deleted> is so difficult to understand about CARS are not designed to kill, their purpose is NOT killing people!

Name ONE thing, that guns are made to do, other then shoot and kill someone/something?

And don't give me this BS of "a gun can frighten people into not doing a, b or c...

Why are people frightened by guns?

Because they are DESIGNED solely to maim and kill!

 

Jeeeeezusfroggingchrist!

PM me your address - I got a few old spoons lying around.

[richard_smith237]

13 hours ago, dunroaming said:

14 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Come on... Don't you consider it your right to be able to defend yourself ???...   if someone came into my home I want the capacity to defend myself...

If you are using an assault rifle you are not defending yourself, you are declaring war!  To keep using the excuse that you need an arsenal of weapons to "defend" yourself is beyond ridiculous.  Do you really think that we are that naïve?

 

I agree with you 100% - You missed the sarcastic nature of my post, then quoted out of context.... 

[AsianAtHeart]

1 hour ago, Credo said:

It seems the students are getting some support from the medical community.   The American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and four other medical associations issued a joint statement Friday urging comprehensive action by Trump and Congress, including labeling gun violence a national public health epidemic.

 

Trump focus on mental health after school shooting denounced

 

Frustration is mounting in the medical community as the Trump administration again points to mental illness in response to yet another mass shooting.

"The concept that mental illness is a precursor to violent behavior is nonsense," said Dr. Louis Kraus, forensic psychiatry chief at Chicago's Rush University Medical College. "The vast majority of gun violence is not attributable to mental illness."

Nikolas Cruz, the 19-year-old charged with killing 17 people on Valentine's Day at his former high school in Parkland, Florida has been described by students as a loner with troubling behavior who had been kicked out of school. His mother recently died and Cruz had been staying with family friends.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/doctors-blast-trumps-mental-illness-focus-fight-violence-171839946--politics.html

Ha!  Is this going to end up pitting Big Pharma/AMA against NRA?  I wish more of the real truth would be published.  Doctors might be in the hot seat.  If only people knew about the SSRI connection to mass murders....

[FreddieRoyle]

23 hours ago, DM07 said:

If I hear/read this moronic "cars= guns+- BS one more time, I am gonna scoop my eyeballs out with a rusty spoon!

<deleted> is so difficult to understand about CARS are not designed to kill, their purpose is NOT killing people!

Name ONE thing, that guns are made to do, other then shoot and kill someone/something?

And don't give me this BS of "a gun can frighten people into not doing a, b or c...

Why are people frightened by guns?

Because they are DESIGNED solely to maim and kill!

 

Jeeeeezusfroggingchrist!

 Your wild expletive laden rant does not help your argument. I'm not sure why this is difficult to grasp that when guns are not available crazy and violent people use alternate methods(Nice mass murderer used a truck),(Berlin mass murderer used a truck),(Manchester Ariane Grande mass murderer used a homemade bomb), to give 3 examples. So you see the kneejerk reaction to ban guns helps nobody. In fact it is worse than useless, as after guns are banned people will be unable to protect their loved ones, leading to a spike in paranoia and resulting violent behavior. 

 If there is the will to deal with these mass murder sprees then deal with causes of angst, I know what they are but probably not permissable to start that relevant discussion on this thread.

Edited February 20, 2018 by FreddieRoyle

[robblok]

1 hour ago, AsianAtHeart said:

The keyword in the above is "school."  There have been other mass shootings in the UK.  Of course, the UK has also experienced bombings, vehicular assaults, etc.  Can we ban bombs, vehicles, knives, bricks, wine bottles, and, er, .... fists?

 

I always chuckle a bit to think of airport security checking for fists.

Yes the UK is as bad as the US (not by a long shot). The UK did something and it worked. In the Netherlands we always had strong gun control and we don't have the madness they have in the USA. Of all the civilized countries the US is the craziest with its gun laws and shootings. 

 

But like many said this can't be solved quickly.. there are too many guns around. This might never be solved and the death toll will become higher and higher. Maybe slowly reigning in what kind of guns can be owned and removing the assault rifles first from the country. This is not a problem that has an easy solution, because there are so many guns out there (and idiots).

[RickBradford]

“The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.” - Thomas Sowell.

 

 

[ELVIS123456]

18 hours ago, merlen10002 said:

It did in Australia , Gun kill people , take the guns away and it will stop . 

It did not work in Australia at all.  What worked was 200 years of strongly controlled gun access being ramped up in the 1990s, such that the small numbers of guns kept by very few people was outlawed and it was mandatory to hand back all guns or be jailed - very very few exceptions. There are still killings with guns, but the tighter access to guns and the severe penalties involved for anyone selling a gun that is used in a crime, haslargely worked.

 

USA has had gun ownership for over 200 years and there at at least 300 million guns in circulation - some say upwards of 500 million.  The right to bear arms is in their Constitution.  A very large percentage of Americans strongly oppose any change to the constitution.

 

You are comparing apples and bananas.

 

Having said that, I do think Obama's proposal to make it harder to be able to get guns for those declared mentally unsound, was a good idea.  But those in favour of gun ownership remaining a legal right saw this as the beginning of the wedge, and opposed it.  

 

IMO the solution is to slowly slowly catchy monkey.  Loudly trying to throw a net over the monkey aint gonna work.

 

Hey - watch this space - maybe Trump will make some progress on this issue when things have quietened down and through the 'back channels'.  After all, it was a right wing politician in Australia that had the clout and influence to make the changes, while appeasing the vested interests (gun clubs, hunters, etc.).

 

 

 

 

[jcsmith]

On 2/19/2018 at 10:21 AM, ELVIS123456 said:

Guns dont kill people - people using guns do.

It's a lot easier to do a mass killing with a gun than it is with a knife or your bare hands. And it's a lot easier to do that with an assault rifle than it is with a six shooter.

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

“The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.” - Thomas Sowell.

 

Right in a way, but because the guns are so widely available they are easier to get for bad people, if they were not as widely available less bad people would have them. Look at countries like the Netherlands with tough gun control laws. Sure there are criminals with guns.. but with about 200 murders a year some years 150 its not that bad (16 million people).

 

Having said that, there are too many guns floating around now for any changes to bear fruit quickly. Gun access needs to be reigned in slowly maybe starting with the assault weapons and so on. 

[Berkshire]

14 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

This is not Pandora's box, it can be closed... It will take years, a few generations even... the prolific use of, availability and ownership of guns in the US is the problem... that and the fact that its impossible to safely Police a few hundred million people some of whom are nutjobs and believe it their right to carry and use a gun for their own screwed up agenda... 

 

This is such a Polarising issue and I simply cannot understand why or even how...  I do like to see and recognise the opinions of others, however, this subject is where I fall short in the potential understanding of (some of) my fellow man... There is no place for guns in the hands of the Public in any civilised society.

Agree, it's all very hard to understand.....even among fellow Americans.  The gun culture in America goes back decades and it's that culture that will prevent change.  Face it, gun control folks will never be as passionate as gun owners.  The latter is willing to fight to the death.  It would take massive moral courage from our elected officials to do what's necessary....which means it will never happen.  Want to know why the NRA always wins?  Here's an article that explains it....

 

[Why does the NRA always win, despite the repeated national traumas, and despite poll after poll showing a majority in favor of stronger gun control measures? It’s not the money. It’s because the NRA has built a movement that has convinced its followers that gun ownership is a way of life, central to one’s freedom and safety, that must be defended on a daily basis.]

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/19/why-the-nra-always-wins-217028

 

[AsianAtHeart]

22 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Face it, gun control folks will never be as passionate as gun owners.

I don't know nor understand how or why, but this will change.  America will come to the point where it repudiates every principle of its Constitution.  This has been foretold since more than a hundred years ago.  I, for one, am not looking forward to this "milestone," but am certain that it will be reached, probably sooner than anyone thinks.

[Redline]

On 2/19/2018 at 10:21 AM, ELVIS123456 said:

Guns dont kill people - people using guns do.

Cars dont kill people - people driving cars do.

Trucks dont kill people - people driving trucks do.

Cigarettes dont kill people - people smoking cigarettes do.

 

The problem is people. Not guns, cars, trucks, cigarettes, etc etc etc.

The issue is to manage the people, not to hate the guns.

Making guns illegal will not solve the mass shooting problem in USA.

 

Controlling who has access to guns will help - a lot.

Not one mass shooting killer is an NRA member, that I am aware of, and 99.9% of legal gun owners do not commit mass shootings.

Most mass shooting killers had 'mental issues' that people knew about.

Bring back legal detaining and mental health assessment of anyone suspected of being a danger to others/themselves - that will help.

Making guns illegal will not help.

Having armed guards in schools will help. They have armed guards in banks, why not in schools.

 

That's not even an argument.  Stop regurgitating some nonsense BS that the NRA fed you.  Don't insult our intelligence.  We are not idiots

[DM07]

56 minutes ago, FreddieRoyle said:

 Your wild expletive laden rant does not help your argument. I'm not sure why this is difficult to grasp that when guns are not available crazy and violent people use alternate methods(Nice mass murderer used a truck),(Berlin mass murderer used a truck),(Manchester Ariane Grande mass murderer used a homemade bomb), to give 3 examples. So you see the kneejerk reaction to ban guns helps nobody. In fact it is worse than useless, as after guns are banned people will be unable to protect their loved ones, leading to a spike in paranoia and resulting violent behavior. 

 If there is the will to deal with these mass murder sprees then deal with causes of angst, I know what they are but probably not permissable to start that relevant discussion on this thread.

I really would like to tell you what I really feel about inane comments like yours and the people who make them!

...but it is against forum rules so....

 

So BECAUSE you could take something else, to kill people, gun - control makes no sense!?

Yupp...that totally makes sense...on that weird planet you may come from!

 

 

[pornprong]

On 2/19/2018 at 12:51 PM, ELVIS123456 said:

Guns dont kill people - people using guns do.

Cars dont kill people - people driving cars do.

Trucks dont kill people - people driving trucks do.

Cigarettes dont kill people - people smoking cigarettes do.

Take away the guns and it's a lot harder to kill people and basically impossible for one lone nutter to massacre large numbers.

 

On 2/19/2018 at 12:51 PM, ELVIS123456 said:

The problem is people. Not guns, cars, trucks, cigarettes, etc etc etc.

The issue is to manage the people, not to hate the guns.

Making guns illegal will not solve the mass shooting problem in USA.

You've made a series of false analogies - guns are not in the slightest way comparable to cars, trucks and cigarettes.

How many massacres caused by people driving trucks?

How many massacres caused by people driving cars

and the most ridiculous of all...

How many massacres caused by people smoking cigarettes?

 

On 2/19/2018 at 12:51 PM, ELVIS123456 said:

Controlling who has access to guns will help - a lot.

Not one mass shooting killer is an NRA member, that I am aware of, and 99.9% of legal gun owners do not commit mass shootings.

100% of non-gun owners do not commit mass shootings.

 

The guns used in the Sandy Hook massacre were legally bought (27 pre-schoolers dead)

The guns used in Las Vegas were legally bought (58 country music concert goers dead)

The guns used at Columbine were legally bought (15 school students dead)

It goes on and on and on...

http://nationalpost.com/news/world/mass-shooters-use-loopholes-lapses-in-checks-to-get-guns

 

On 2/19/2018 at 12:51 PM, ELVIS123456 said:

Most mass shooting killers had 'mental issues' that people knew about.

Bring back legal detaining and mental health assessment of anyone suspected of being a danger to others/themselves - that will help.

Making guns illegal will not help.

Having armed guards in schools will help. They have armed guards in banks, why not in schools.

 

Armed guards in schools..... what sort of society do you want to live in?

The right to bear arms trumps the right for kids to be safe at school.

How sad.

[pornprong]

What type of people want to own guns?

Scared timid people, that's who.

The tough, redneck, white pride, NRA gun nutters are all just scared little boys who need guns to compensate for their inadequacies, fears and failures.

Rambo's they are not.

Edited February 20, 2018 by pornprong

[Becker]

Total waste of time to debate with the gun lovers and 2nd Amendment nutters. When the "argument" that "guns don't kill people - people kill people" actually makes sense to you you're too far gone to be brought back no matter how many children are slaughtered.

It's like saying that speed doesn't kill people - it's the sudden deceleration that kills you.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, FreddieRoyle said:

 Your wild expletive laden rant does not help your argument. I'm not sure why this is difficult to grasp that when guns are not available crazy and violent people use alternate methods(Nice mass murderer used a truck),(Berlin mass murderer used a truck),(Manchester Ariane Grande mass murderer used a homemade bomb), to give 3 examples. So you see the kneejerk reaction to ban guns helps nobody. In fact it is worse than useless, as after guns are banned people will be unable to protect their loved ones, leading to a spike in paranoia and resulting violent behavior. 

 If there is the will to deal with these mass murder sprees then deal with causes of angst, I know what they are but probably not permissable to start that relevant discussion on this thread.

 

Could you please tell me how many school massacres in the USA over the last 20 years by the killer driving a truck through a school or planted a home made bomb.

 

I would like to compare that as a percentage compared to school massacres by guns.

 

Here is a link to the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/14/school-shootings-in-america-2018-how-many-so-far

 

Just seven weeks into 2018, there have been eight shootings at US schools that have resulted in injury or death.

Seventeen people have been confirmed dead in the latest shooting in Parkland, Florida, on Valentine’s Day.

Less than a month ago, a 15-year-old student opened fire at a high school in Kentucky, leaving two students dead and 18 injured. Other incidents have been grave, but on a smaller scale.

In early February, one student in Los Angeles was shot in the head, and another in the arm, when a gun concealed in a fellow student’s backpack went off.

[AsianAtHeart]

29 minutes ago, Becker said:

Total waste of time to debate with the gun lovers and 2nd Amendment nutters.

Those who feel supporters of the American Constitution and Bill of Rights are "nutters" may have forgotten what it cost to make America the great land of freedom that it has been since its inception.  Many brave men bore arms and paid the ultimate price for the rest of Americans to have their liberties and rights.  Among those essential rights is the right to be free of governmental tyranny.  When governments are desirous of maintaining absolute power over the people, they must first disarm them, and America's founders well understood this vital principle, ensuring that the people should have the right to bear arms.  With this fact in mind, it gets a bit sticky when people begin saying that the military or law enforcement should have more powerful weaponry than the citizenry.  A great disparity in the balance of power can have disastrous results.  Personally, I don't want to have a gun.  I don't like guns.  But the American Constitution is an admirable piece of work, worthy of the world's respect, and those who wish to exercise their rights should be free to do so.

[stevenl]

26 minutes ago, AsianAtHeart said:

Those who feel supporters of the American Constitution and Bill of Rights are "nutters" may have forgotten what it cost to make America the great land of freedom that it has been since its inception.  Many brave men bore arms and paid the ultimate price for the rest of Americans to have their liberties and rights.  Among those essential rights is the right to be free of governmental tyranny.  When governments are desirous of maintaining absolute power over the people, they must first disarm them, and America's founders well understood this vital principle, ensuring that the people should have the right to bear arms.  With this fact in mind, it gets a bit sticky when people begin saying that the military or law enforcement should have more powerful weaponry than the citizenry.  A great disparity in the balance of power can have disastrous results.  Personally, I don't want to have a gun.  I don't like guns.  But the American Constitution is an admirable piece of work, worthy of the world's respect, and those who wish to exercise their rights should be free to do so.

"America's founders well understood this vital principle"

 

No, America's founders were at that point in time afraid one 'governmental tyranny' might exert its influence again. That is all this amendment refers to: "if the British come back, we have to stand together to defeat them".

[Becker]

27 minutes ago, AsianAtHeart said:

Those who feel supporters of the American Constitution and Bill of Rights are "nutters" may have forgotten what it cost to make America the great land of freedom that it has been since its inception.  Many brave men bore arms and paid the ultimate price for the rest of Americans to have their liberties and rights.  Among those essential rights is the right to be free of governmental tyranny.  When governments are desirous of maintaining absolute power over the people, they must first disarm them, and America's founders well understood this vital principle, ensuring that the people should have the right to bear arms.  With this fact in mind, it gets a bit sticky when people begin saying that the military or law enforcement should have more powerful weaponry than the citizenry.  A great disparity in the balance of power can have disastrous results.  Personally, I don't want to have a gun.  I don't like guns.  But the American Constitution is an admirable piece of work, worthy of the world's respect, and those who wish to exercise their rights should be free to do so.

I was talking about the 2nd Amendment and not the whole bill of rights. Helpful tip; try to actually read and comprehend posts you reply to. Furthermore, this whole "we need protection from the government" drivel really is old and worn. If the government in an alternate reality used the armed forces against the population (and the armed forces agreed to do this) the population would stand no chance at all. None - zilch - zip.

I cringe when I see the camo clad militia idiots with their rifles and pick-up trucks strutting about. One smart bomb and bye bye militia. That thought puts a smile on my face.

So it's "sticky" that the armed forces have heavier guns than the civilians?? Tell me, what do you propose to remedy the situation (this should be good)?

[FreddieRoyle]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

Could you please tell me how many school massacres in the USA over the last 20 years by the killer driving a truck through a school or planted a home made bomb.

 

I would like to compare that as a percentage compared to school massacres by guns.

 

Here is a link to the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/14/school-shootings-in-america-2018-how-many-so-far

 

Just seven weeks into 2018, there have been eight shootings at US schools that have resulted in injury or death.

Seventeen people have been confirmed dead in the latest shooting in Parkland, Florida, on Valentine’s Day.

Less than a month ago, a 15-year-old student opened fire at a high school in Kentucky, leaving two students dead and 18 injured. Other incidents have been grave, but on a smaller scale.

In early February, one student in Los Angeles was shot in the head, and another in the arm, when a gun concealed in a fellow student’s backpack went off.

 Well I am reluctant to get bogged down in statistical to and fro's, but in one day back in 2001 more than 3,000 Americans were murdered in just one day by whackos using jet planes as weapons. I did not hear anybody call for planes to be banned(luckily) but yes moves were put into action to limit the types of crazies that were likely to do such horrific crimes of mass murder. This is my point, we should be more proactive weeding out the unstable members of society - judging by some of the absolutely OTT posts using profanities and outright threats on this very forum hopefully some members here do not have access to knives, trucks, planes or guns.

 Let cool, calm heads prevail and decide the way forward, and leave the lynch mob mentality and emotion responses to the dark days of history books.

[billd766]

3 hours ago, FreddieRoyle said:

 Well I am reluctant to get bogged down in statistical to and fro's, but in one day back in 2001 more than 3,000 Americans were murdered in just one day by whackos using jet planes as weapons. I did not hear anybody call for planes to be banned(luckily) but yes moves were put into action to limit the types of crazies that were likely to do such horrific crimes of mass murder. This is my point, we should be more proactive weeding out the unstable members of society - judging by some of the absolutely OTT posts using profanities and outright threats on this very forum hopefully some members here do not have access to knives, trucks, planes or guns.

 Let cool, calm heads prevail and decide the way forward, and leave the lynch mob mentality and emotion responses to the dark days of history books.

 

Very good reply.

 

Of course you are reluctant to reply as you have no real answer. You are trying to divert the topic onto something else though.

 

Now please tell me if the terrorists were American civilians trying to kill other Americans?

 

If they were not American citizens but terrorists that is nothing to do with gun control at all.

 

Please go back and try to answer the question that I asked

Edited February 20, 2018 by billd766
added extra text

[RickBradford]

Another interesting set of data.

 

One graph points out that the vast majority of gun deaths in the USA are in fact suicides, somewhere between 75% and 90% (it varies by year). And suicide by gun is easily the most successful method.

 

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

 

There's probably statistical support in there for both gun-toting nuts and gun-control freaks.

 

Graph 4 is quite an eye-opener....

Edited February 20, 2018 by RickBradford

[ELVIS123456]

In answer to all the negative responses and personal insults in response to my post about the reality of the gun control issue in USA, I would like to state a few facts. I know arguing with some people (especially liberals) using facts is usually a waste of time, but here goes anyway:

 

FACT - I have never said I agree with people in America owning assault rifles and guns - it is their right.

FACT - America's unusually high levels of gun violence are a result of over 200 years of rights that have made firearms far more available in America (than any other western civilisation).

FACT - It is illegal to drive drunk in USA, but FAR more people are killed by drunk drivers than by nutters in mass shootings.

FACT - Making it illegal to own guns in USA will not stop mass shootings, but it will cause massive social problems and widespread violence..

FACT - Chicago has extremely strong gun control laws, and yet has the highest number of people killed by guns PA.

FACT - It is not that simple an issue to solve in USA.

FACT - some people dont know how to compromise, and adamantly believe anyone who doesn't agree with their solution to any problem, does not want the problem to be solved - they are wrong.

 

So, if you accept that the problem is complex and difficult, but does need to be solved, then maybe it needs to be done a different way.  Try these two suggestions - after reading my posts again and think about what I meant when I said "slowly slowly catchy monkey':  EXAMPLES

 

1.  Make it mandatory that from 1 Jan 20XX anyone buying a 'prescribed gun/rifle' must be a registered member of NRA/Gun Club and be certified to a level that means they know how to safely store and use such a weapon, and must keep that certification through regular attendance and training courses. Before you get upsets Libs, remember not one mass killing has been done by such a person - nil NRA are mass murderers Then after a few more years, introduce some more controls - in full and complete cooperation with the NRA and National Gun Club associations - it will be in their best interests as one day there may be moves to withdraw the 2nd amendment and enough Libs/Dems in Govt to make it happen.

 

2.  Armed Guards in Schools.  

 

The United States of America is paralyzed with political indecision over something the State of Israel figured out more than 40 years ago: all schools should have mandated security features and active shooter protocols.

The horrific scene in Parkland, and the upsetting videos broadcast from the school during the shooting, should be the final straw. The kids should not have been hiding and screaming, they should have been in the midst of a pre-determined security protocol.

In 1974, Israel endured the Ma’alot Massacre in which “Palestinian” terrorists took 115 people hostage at Netiv Meir Elementary School. Twenty-two children and three others were killed and 68 injured. Israel now requires schools with 100 or more students to have a guard posted. The civilian police force handles the entire security system of all schools from kindergarten through college. The Ministry of Education funds shelters and fences, reinforces school buses, and hires and trains guards. 

Guards don’t just stand around. They check everyone entering, and engage threats. And yeah, they’ve got guns.The lawful purposes for carrying guns are very clear: protect school personnel and students, create a sense of security, deter the ill-intentioned, and provide self-defense. 

Common sense. Except to the illogical dullards who claim that “adding guns to schools won’t fix anything” and are fixated on the NRA and the ridiculous notions that gun laws magically stop criminals and crazy people from obtaining one of the 300 million guns in our country.

https://townhall.com/columnists/lawr...ocols-n2449726

 

[ELVIS123456]

Following on from my previous post, here is a very good analysis of what would actually happen if the Govt tried to ban and confiscate guns in America.

Liberals love to fantasize about confiscating every gun in America. It may be their most beautiful dream. Liberals get control of the Supreme Court and ignore the Second Amendment; Washington makes gun ownership illegal; almost all the guns come pouring in or are destroyed; a few hapless Jim Bobs who won’t get in line get shot up by the cops and then the government is free to do anything it wants and if people don’t like it, well, what are they going to do about it without guns?

Let me suggest a less happy, but probably more accurate version of how an attempt at gun confiscation would likely go. Liberals get control of the Supreme Court and ignore the Second Amendment followed by Washington making gun ownership illegal. So far, so good, right? Then the vast majority of police departments across the country refuse to do more than accept weapons that are turned in and, of course, very few citizens actually hand over their weapons. At this point, D.C. would have no choice other than to accept that gun confiscation is impossible, which would be the most likely outcome.

Or, alternately, D.C. could hire goon squads in local communities to go house to house to confiscate weapons. Yes, people would be killed in conflicts with the police and goon squads that come to take their guns. Liberals would cheer. They would not be cheering when police chiefs, officers, and goon squad members who carry out these orders are assassinated at their homes by armed people from their own communities.

Since many Americans would assume, probably correctly, that gun confiscation would be a prelude to government violence against civilians, the assassins would be openly cheered as patriots by tens of millions of Americans. Messages supporting them would show up on social media; talk show hosts would call them heroes and others would encourage them to go further. This would enrage liberals who would demand more use of force against not just the assassins, but the people supporting them. These comments would likely harden positions on both sides, and if the attempts at gun confiscation continued (and they probably wouldn’t), things would get even more violent. Police chiefs, politicians, and anti-gun activists would probably be assassinated and millions would cheer on their killers. The government response would become ever more violent. There would be calls to get the military involved except the people making those calls would soon find our troops just as split as the rest of the country. A majority would likely refuse to go into action against their fellow citizens and some might even openly join them. By that point, the potential for a genuine civil war would be quite real.

The response to this from liberals would probably be something like, “Well, that certainly didn’t happen in Australia.” Very true, but what most liberals believe Australia did and what it actually did are very different.

Australia made it extremely difficult to buy a new gun as it instituted a completely voluntary gun buyback. This means that in 1996, there were 17.5 guns per person and in 2016, the number was only down to 13.7 per person. So Australia’s big accomplishment was to decrease the number of guns in its nation by 22 percent. How much of a difference would that make in America where there are 101 guns for every 100 citizens and open borders that would allow illegal weapons to stream in if there were ever a large-scale demand for them?

To get rid of guns on a scale widespread enough to matter in the United States, you’d need to go house to house and search because most people would claim their weapons were stolen or lost. Doing that with millions of up-to-that-point law-abiding citizens would be considered tyrannical and it would produce a violent backlash that hasn’t been seen in this country since the Civil War. If you want to turn ordinary American citizens into “freedom fighters” against an abusive government, try to take their guns and it will work about as well as anything else you can imagine."

https://pjmedia.com/trending/liberal...ead-civil-war/

 

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Following on from my previous post, here is a very good analysis of what would actually happen if the Govt tried to ban and confiscate guns in America.

Liberals love to fantasize about confiscating every gun in America. It may be their most beautiful dream. Liberals get control of the Supreme Court and ignore the Second Amendment; Washington makes gun ownership illegal; almost all the guns come pouring in or are destroyed; a few hapless Jim Bobs who won’t get in line get shot up by the cops and then the government is free to do anything it wants and if people don’t like it, well, what are they going to do about it without guns?

Let me suggest a less happy, but probably more accurate version of how an attempt at gun confiscation would likely go. Liberals get control of the Supreme Court and ignore the Second Amendment followed by Washington making gun ownership illegal. So far, so good, right? Then the vast majority of police departments across the country refuse to do more than accept weapons that are turned in and, of course, very few citizens actually hand over their weapons. At this point, D.C. would have no choice other than to accept that gun confiscation is impossible, which would be the most likely outcome.

Or, alternately, D.C. could hire goon squads in local communities to go house to house to confiscate weapons. Yes, people would be killed in conflicts with the police and goon squads that come to take their guns. Liberals would cheer. They would not be cheering when police chiefs, officers, and goon squad members who carry out these orders are assassinated at their homes by armed people from their own communities.

Since many Americans would assume, probably correctly, that gun confiscation would be a prelude to government violence against civilians, the assassins would be openly cheered as patriots by tens of millions of Americans. Messages supporting them would show up on social media; talk show hosts would call them heroes and others would encourage them to go further. This would enrage liberals who would demand more use of force against not just the assassins, but the people supporting them. These comments would likely harden positions on both sides, and if the attempts at gun confiscation continued (and they probably wouldn’t), things would get even more violent. Police chiefs, politicians, and anti-gun activists would probably be assassinated and millions would cheer on their killers. The government response would become ever more violent. There would be calls to get the military involved except the people making those calls would soon find our troops just as split as the rest of the country. A majority would likely refuse to go into action against their fellow citizens and some might even openly join them. By that point, the potential for a genuine civil war would be quite real.

The response to this from liberals would probably be something like, “Well, that certainly didn’t happen in Australia.” Very true, but what most liberals believe Australia did and what it actually did are very different.

Australia made it extremely difficult to buy a new gun as it instituted a completely voluntary gun buyback. This means that in 1996, there were 17.5 guns per person and in 2016, the number was only down to 13.7 per person. So Australia’s big accomplishment was to decrease the number of guns in its nation by 22 percent. How much of a difference would that make in America where there are 101 guns for every 100 citizens and open borders that would allow illegal weapons to stream in if there were ever a large-scale demand for them?

To get rid of guns on a scale widespread enough to matter in the United States, you’d need to go house to house and search because most people would claim their weapons were stolen or lost. Doing that with millions of up-to-that-point law-abiding citizens would be considered tyrannical and it would produce a violent backlash that hasn’t been seen in this country since the Civil War. If you want to turn ordinary American citizens into “freedom fighters” against an abusive government, try to take their guns and it will work about as well as anything else you can imagine."

https://pjmedia.com/trending/liberal...ead-civil-war/

 

Wow. Impressive PASTING. 

 

Edited February 20, 2018 by Jingthing

[Air Smiles]

4 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/liberal...ead-civil-war/

 

Quote

PJ Media (originally known as Pajamas Media) is an American conservative news, opinion, and commentary collaborative blog

 

Not biased at all then...

[ELVIS123456]

Why is it that liberals believe that reason and truth only comes from liberal sources, and that anything from a conservative source is false. 

 

So, besides banning guns, what does CNN recommend??

 

Dont answer - I know - I gotta get back to my motto (see below).

 

[Berkshire]

9 hours ago, Becker said:

Total waste of time to debate with the gun lovers and 2nd Amendment nutters. When the "argument" that "guns don't kill people - people kill people" actually makes sense to you you're too far gone to be brought back no matter how many children are slaughtered.

It's like saying that speed doesn't kill people - it's the sudden deceleration that kills you.

You're right, it's frustrating talking to a pro-gun dude.  It's like talking to a Trump supporter.  All they do is regurgitate the same tired talking points.  In the mean time, dead Americans just keep piling up.

 

It's crystal clear that guns are too easily accessible in the US.  Gun laws don't make sense, especially when compared to how we legislate other behavior.  Take pot.  Smoking pot has never killed anyone.  Ever.  Yet, pot is still illegal in most states and regulated to death in others.  But guns?  A 19 yr old nutjob can buy multiple assault rifles and no one even bats an eye.  That's the current state of America.

 

 

[Credo]

It's really quite simple.   There is no reason for anyone to have access to a war-type weapon.   Outlaw the private ownership of all assault-type weapons and rapid fire weapons and anything that can convert them to rapid fire.   There only use is for killing large numbers of people.   

 

The vast majority of Americans are not going to have their guns taken away, but no one has a need for such fire power.