{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
10/15/2015 7:21:41 PM
1
You're kidding, right? Home invasion protection systems aren't cheap, and normally can't afforded on the salaries that most people are making.
Basically, what you're saying, is if you're family is in danger, you shouldn't be able to protect yourself with anything but your fists because a gun if for cowards.
Okay, so you're calling criminals cowards, but what would you do if your house was broken into at night with a wife/husband and kids at home? You're telling me you'd be able to stop the "coward(s)" from hurting them?
English
-
There is no spree of home invasions that's plaguing the country. There are no boogy men that are entering the home with family obviously still there. Criminals aren't that stupid. They much rather do crimes when people aren't home since killing a man put you on death row in the same states that allow you easy access to guns. Enough is enough. You don't need guns.
-
You have a good point, but that doesn't eliminate the possibility of it happening. Just because all criminals aren't that dumb doesn't mean they're all that smart. What about rapists, murders, kidnappers? What about muggers? I'm sorry, but I'd rather have a gun and not need it than not have a gun and need it.
-
You have just as much possibility of killing your own family member or a neighbor as killing a criminal entering your home. You eliminate the gun and you eliminate the risk of them doing harm. Simple as that.
-
But how do you remove guns obtained illegally? How do you combat criminals with guns? You can't keep tabs on criminals with closed cases. You can't check their residences without cause, and cause calls for proper evidence, which can't be obtained without a warrant, and a warrant can't be called into place, again, without proper cause. What you're saying is to eliminate guns from innocent people, putting them at risk. Do you really think a criminal is going to pay attention to a sign that says "firearms prohibited?" Did it work for drugs? You're logic is flawed. The places that have the highest gun crime are the places with the strictest gun laws. There's an obvious, undeniable connection, here. So please, explain how removing guns from the general populous is a good idea.
-
Edited by Unforgiven: 10/16/2015 12:30:57 AMYou don't need to concern yourself with guns obtained illegally. Let FBI and Law Enforcement handle it. They have done a decent job so far. Have had many seizures of guns. You have a higher chance of being killed in a car crash or getting a heart attack than being killed by a gun. And most of the guns doing the crimes were obtained legally anyways. Just because its so easy to get them. You know how easy it is to buy a gun? http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/19/news/guns-background-checks/ Here is an article from CNN. You basically have to fill out a form and you are good to go. Then they run a background check and you get approved. only 1% of all forms are denied. But gun buyers don't have to go through a background check when they make a purchase at a gun show. You can check a website for gun shows in your area. Honestly I feel like i shouldn't post this on forums, because someone will read it and see just how easy it is.
-
Yes, that's why it would take a mass law enforcement raid 10 years to remove all illegally owned guns in AMERICA ALONE. You think America has the leanest gun control laws? How about the middle east, where $10 USD gets you an AK-47 with three magazines and a box of ammunition? How about the hundreds of black market arms dealers who obtain and sell illegal weapons? How about arms dealers that are international? Another thing; how are you going to state that there's more of a chance of you dying in a car crash than to a gun crime, while your original argument was "Why do you think there's so many school shootings?" I'm sorry, but that's seems an awful lot like gun violence to me, so either you're a troll, or you don't even know what to believe.
-
Edited by Unforgiven: 10/16/2015 1:30:39 AMYes there is more chance to die in a car crash. But gun crime is huge in this country. As far as chances go. They are still fairly bad. I am not speaking about what is happening in Middle East. Or in Africa for example where warlords kill thousands and make young children kill with automatic rifles. Hell they have worse problems than we do. But take England for example. They have very low gun crime. And why do you think that is? [quote] Gun Violence - Odds of dying: 1 in 300 America is the gun violence capital of the world. According to FBI crime statistics, there were 9,146 murders by firearm in 2009. Like death by accidental gun discharge, death rates for assault by firearm in the U.S. are also disproportionate to similar countries. It has the highest rate of firearm deaths among 25 high-income nations and more disturbingly, the overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children under age 15 is 12 times higher than the death rates of these 25 high-income nations combined.[/quote]
-
I want you to read that, and tell me how broken those statistics are. When compares to the gun crime of the world, not just the 25 wealthiest countries, it looks like nothing. What, because money is involved, that statistic is supposed to mean something? Or are you forgetting that most of these countries also don't have gun laws as strict as anywhere in the united states? Either way, the statistic about children may be true, but those children live in households lacking responsible adults. Nobody who's responsible with a firearm would leave it in a place where their child even knows they could find it. I lived in a house that contained a combat ready rifle, and I couldn't find the -blam!-ing thing ANYWHERE. I didn't go looking for it, because at a young age, I was taught to be responsible with firearms around, I've fired a few of them myself. .22 LR, .40 handgun 9mm glock, and a 30.6 big game rifle. I've also fired a crossbow, which has next to no regulations, but is silent and can kill faster.
-
Statistics do mean something. Its clear as day. USA has the most killing by firearms in the world. What gun laws. Didn't you read anything I wrote?
-
I did, but considering that the statistic is functionally false, your entire argument is losing credibility with each passing anti-firearm response. I don't expect to convince you that firearms are the end all be all of protection, but I'm expecting you to realize that they're not nearly as bad as you're making them out to be. [b][i]Responsible[/i][/b] gun owners make it a point to make sure their firearm is cleaned and taken care of, and up and out of reach and sight of children. If you're wondering why your statistic is wrong, look at Mexican gun crime, look at the gun crime in Equador, look at the gun crime in parts of South America, and in a few of the African nations, all of which have gun crime exceeding the U.S. by enormous numbers. Oh, but my points don't count, do they?
-
How are they functionally false? It lists top countries in the world similar to USA and shows that use has more firearm deaths. How is that functionally wrong?
-
Because its not a comparison of gun crime across the world.
-
Edited by Unforgiven: 10/17/2015 12:10:51 AMIf you need statistics for world comparison simple google it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate here is firearm related death per 100k population - US comes in 10th. But don't compare us to third world countries. Compare instead to Wealthy countries becauses thats a better comparison. Among wealthy countries we are #1.Don't compared us to for example Honduras - the country that is plagued by gang wars. That would not be a good comparison. The best comparison would be to countries of similar income and life expectancy. Any other comparison would be flawed. And the fact that Switzerland has the lowest mortality rate by guns. Is just skews the whole statistic, because their entire economy is based on Banking. If they had mass murder their banks wouldn't be profitable. There is a reason why people hold their money in Switzerland. Its because it is an easy way to hide money. But I am going off topic now.
