So, after mass shooting, Australia "banned" guns 20 years ago = ZERO mass killings since

a reply to: SudoNim

Actually, no, YOU live in a fantasy land. I witnessed it first hand in Washington D.C.

You guys don't know # about # but think you know everything. It's friggin hilarious. You'd be the one who ended up in a hospital in that situation in D.C. and lucky to escape with your life.

It's not 15 guys with crowbars, even 15 people with fists, bats, brass knuckles, a roll of quarters...a SIDEWALK, any of those things can end up with an individual DEAD or permanently disfigured/disabled.

A gun in that situation can dissuade any action from ever taking place, again, I've seen this FIRST HAND. Or if necessary can stop them from killing you. Besides most of those people are pussies of the first order and as soon as the first shot is fired will tuck tail and run, where as you curling into a ball and hoping for their mercy usually invokes the exact opposite.

Jaden

p.s. you don't have to come across 15 people who wish you ill every other week to need a gun when you do. Once in a lifetime would be enough for you to never get the chance to do so again. The real world is NOT a forgiving place...

a reply to: SudoNim

Nope, sorry not OVER the safety of our children, FOR the safety of our children. Responsible gun ownership is no different than responsible chainsaw ownership, both will kill/maim children if used improperly.

Gun safety needs to be taught at a young age, not gun restriction which can never work.

90+% of gun related accidents in the home are due to poor understanding of gun safety...

Those of us who've grown up around guns with proper safety instruction our whole lives, aren't irrationally afraid of them as you apparently are.

Jaden

Remember that the second amendment was written so that we could protect ourselves from our government. We need em.

a reply to: elysiumfire

wrong... officers are NOT mandated with protecting anyone but themselves. This has been hashed and rehashed in court. LEOs are NOT there to protect you. Anyone who believes this and feels safe because of it is living in fantasy land.

There are so many places in this country where you can turn down the wrong corner and without a gun, you will NOT be getting home safely that night, you'll be going to the hospital or the morgue.

I was working a job where it was 100% travel and me and a coworker had gotten low on gas, dangerously low.

We used our GPS to find the only gas station any where near by. This was just north of St Louis.

I knew we were in danger, my coworker was similar to you in thinking that the world is a different place than it is.

We had some officers pull into the gas station and park and wait for us to leave. We were lucky that they saw us pull in to pump some gas, as we were getting ready to leave, they told us why they had pulled in. We would not have likely been allowed to leave had they not.

At first glance this can appear to negate my first statement; however, it merely reinforces it. Those cops weren't mandated with protecting us. We were fortuitous for them to notice us pulling in, had they not, we could've been killed before they could have ever been called. YOU and ONLY you are responsible for ensuring your own safety and that of your loved ones.

I swear, so many people live in fantasy land where everything is hunky dory and love conquers all...All love conquers is lining the pockets of divorce attorneys.

Smith and Wesson conquers the inability to protect oneself from the realities of this world.

Jaden

a reply to: SudoNim

NO, there isn't. You know why? Wait for it... the statistics that you are using for your analysis are mostly based on MORONS who have NO CLUE what real gun safety is.

No, the reality is that you could be shown a HUNDRED instances where semi-automatic rifles in the hands of responsible owners saved lives and you would dismiss it.. Any that goes against what you believe you will dismiss, because you live in a fantasy land where if you sing kumbaya, and pass out s'mores, criminals won't feel the desire to harm you or your loved ones.

Wow... People like this are one of the reasons this world is so #ty...

Jaden

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: tracy18

the fact that we have another 100 million people in this country who own firearms legally and lawfully. I don't see why those people should lose their rights for the actions of some handful of idiots. Instead, we need to do a better job of identifying and preventing that particular handful of people from purchasing firearms.

In the end, it comes down to the fact that I don't believe in blaming people who aren't actually guilty of crimes.

Guns need to be controlled cos mass shootings are increasing at rapid rate. People are dying...is that reason not enough to do away with guns? For you and me, the number of people who died are just mere numbers but for the families of the deceased it is devastating. Even if one innocent life is harmed then it is an indication that something is not right.

The handful of idiots, as you mentioned, are also a part of 100 million people in this country who own firearms legally and lawfully. And there is no real way to judge who is sane and who is outta their minds!

a reply to: vor78

You breath because everyone else does it, does that make you a sheep?

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: vor78

a reply to: tracy18

Both of you are wrong. Unlike the Troll Sudonim who can only cite personal insults and claim superiority with feelings, I have repeatedly researched the facts and figures. Less than 500 people have been killed from mass shootings in 25 years! More people are stomped on and punched to death on an annual basis.

12,000 people in 2015 were killed by guns and 25,000 injured. In one year.

20 deaths a year from mass shootings that we could try and prevent. And you laugh it off. You laugh off the opportunity to try and save 20 lives.

a reply to: Masterjaden

A gun could dissuade a situation, but all the studies, stats, reports and figures show that a gun in a situation like this gives a higher risk of death than if not. How do you not understand that?

Where do you live? 15 guys with rolls of quarters. Get off the video games man.

In your examples a gun scares off 15 would-be attackers. Is a false reality, in your world thats 15 guys with the same gun that you have. Since you want no controls then all the criminals have the same weapon as you.

15 guys with guns and you think pulling out a gun will scare them off? Or would you just hand over your wallet?

Thought so, tough guy.

a reply to: SudoNim

You support not allowing people on the terrorist watch list to get weapons until they are taken off the list, correct? Would you also support a bill putting these same people on house arrest (similar to how suspected criminals who are on bail have to wear a ankle monitor/get permission to leave the house) until they can prove they aren't a threat? If you wouldn't support a bill like that please tell me why.

a reply to: SudoNim

We could save way more than 20 lives every year if the American left wing would stop protesting/trying to block cops going after urban crime and allowing things like stop and frisk/use the same policies as New York did under Giuliani/Bloomberg. If we did those things we would save much more than 20 lives,cut down on violent crime, and clean up places like Chicago/Detroit/Nola/LA/Oakland/Compton/Baltimore/Cleveland/Memphis/St.Louis.

originally posted by: nancyliedersdeaddog
a reply to: SudoNim

You support not allowing people on the terrorist watch list to get weapons until they are taken off the list, correct? Would you also support a bill putting these same people on house arrest (similar to how suspected criminals who are on bail have to wear a ankle monitor/get permission to leave the house) until they can prove they aren't a threat? If you wouldn't support a bill like that please tell me why.

I would love to answer but I'd rather not since my opinion would be based on a very little of knowledge on the terrorist watch list.

I would need to know what criteria is needed for them to be placed on it. Do they know they are on the watch list?
If they are considered a genuine threat for a good reason then I think there should be more than just house-arrest.

originally posted by: nancyliedersdeaddog
a reply to: SudoNim

We could save way more than 20 lives every year if the American left wing would stop protesting/trying to block cops going after urban crime and allowing things like stop and frisk/use the same policies as New York did under Giuliani/Bloomberg. If we did those things we would save much more than 20 lives,cut down on violent crime, and clean up places like Chicago/Detroit/Nola/LA/Oakland/Compton/Baltimore/Cleveland/Memphis/St.Louis.

That could well be true.

a reply to: nancyliedersdeaddog

You support not allowing people on the terrorist watch list to get weapons until they are taken off the list, correct?

That is nothing more than your own cognitive dissonance......... If there is any entity implicit in furthering this agenda it would be one of the alphabet agencies....

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: nancyliedersdeaddog
a reply to: SudoNim

You support not allowing people on the terrorist watch list to get weapons until they are taken off the list, correct? Would you also support a bill putting these same people on house arrest (similar to how suspected criminals who are on bail have to wear a ankle monitor/get permission to leave the house) until they can prove they aren't a threat? If you wouldn't support a bill like that please tell me why.

I would love to answer but I'd rather not since my opinion would be based on a very little of knowledge on the terrorist watch list.

I would need to know what criteria is needed for them to be placed on it. Do they know they are on the watch list?
If they are considered a genuine threat for a good reason then I think there should be more than just house-arrest.

Here is a link to how you can get on it www.huffingtonpost.com...
Funny thing is the website who wrote this article is heavily pushing for these new gun control bills that block people on the list from getting guns.

I could be wrong but I think some know they are on the list because the end up being interviewed by the FBI but your name goes on the list without your knowledge. Unless you find out for some reason like trying to board a flight or some agency questions you you won't know.

some more sources that also explain it wired

abc

guardian

usa today

I hate to use wikipedia as a source but it does have some good info and highlights concerns

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Umm I'm pretty sure there are quite a few people on the site (with no evidence they have ties to any alphabet agency) who support at least 1 of these new bills. You can also see tons of journalist,read the comments from every day citizens under relevant articles, even polls supporting the no fly no buy bills. So there are plenty of people who more than likely aren't involved with any alphabet agencies trying further this agenda. I do apologize to SudoNim though because it does look like I was wrong to claim he supported banning people on the no fly list/terror watch list from getting a fire arm.

a reply to: nancyliedersdeaddog

Umm I'm pretty sure there are quite a few people on the site (with no evidence they have ties to any alphabet agency) who support at least 1 of these new bills.

I have no doubt in saying that though i believe i could find people on this site who believe aliens are walking among us, that does not necessarily mean they are !

You can also see tons of journalist,read the comments from every day citizens under relevant articles, even polls supporting the no fly no buy bills. So there are plenty of people who more than likely aren't involved with any alphabet agencies trying further this agenda.

Yup people are out there that support kkk, journalists among them, it still does not have any bearing on reality...

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

What point are you even trying to make? I mean your first comment and last comment made it seem like (unless I'm wrong)you believe only people involved with alphabet agencies support furthering the no fly no buy agenda which isn't true at all. I don't see reporters on Mother Jones, Salon, Vox, Huffington Post, ABC, Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times, Yahoo, and CNN supporting the KKK but I do see them supporting no fly no buy.

a reply to: nancyliedersdeaddog

I am on the turps i may have entirely missed the point, i am just trying to say because someone supports a certain position does not make it right ....

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

No problem at first I thought my lack of sleep was causing me to misinterpret what you were saying. I do agree with you that just because people (even if it's the majority of the population) believe something doesn't mean it's true or right. I'm glad we got that sorted out.

originally posted by: SudoNim
a reply to: vor78

You breath because everyone else does it, does that make you a sheep?

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: vor78

a reply to: tracy18

Both of you are wrong. Unlike the Troll Sudonim who can only cite personal insults and claim superiority with feelings, I have repeatedly researched the facts and figures. Less than 500 people have been killed from mass shootings in 25 years! More people are stomped on and punched to death on an annual basis.

12,000 people in 2015 were killed by guns and 25,000 injured. In one year.

20 deaths a year from mass shootings that we could try and prevent. And you laugh it off. You laugh off the opportunity to try and save 20 lives.

How about sone contex? The overwhelming majority of shooting deaths are by illegally owned guns and in America's inner cities, or black on black crimes. How many of those thousands were from legal owners actually protecting thmselves such as a home invasion or store robbery? Where are those illegal guns coming from? Why are inner cities so crime ridden?