|
Post by Admin on Sept 1, 2019 11:46:54 GMT -6
Thank you Mr. President, Mitch Mcdonald and the rest of the Republican party and the NRA who find it necessary to block any gun laws, old and especially new, and encourage people to brandish AK47's and other weapons of war. The mass shootings are being ignored by these people in order to fill their pockets, with the ill-gotten cash they don't deserve. Note there was another mass killing in Texas, who has the worst gun laws, and more easy gun laws passed last night to favor the crazies who shouldn't have the right to own a gun. Seven humans murdered and 23+ injured because some asshole was being pulled over for a traffic violation and was carrying a semi-automatic weapon in his car. The question is WHY? is this a good feature to have NRA? , oh I forgot our Govt Politicians need more money to spend while they aren't doing their job. This is so sick.
|
|
|
Post by teaspoon on Sept 1, 2019 16:13:08 GMT -6
I carry a semi automatic wherever I go....doesn't make me a gun crazed lunatic who is out for mass murder.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 1, 2019 16:48:14 GMT -6
Tea you know i'm not talking about pistols. How do you feel about a AK or an AR laying on the seat of a vehicle ful clip about 30 rounds each. Just a thought, and if u think thats a good idea to do something like that. I believe in gun ownership, but how about the guns I'm talking about. Sport and shooting, deer, rabbits, I think the clips are regulated for hunting, but the clips for murder have no limitations. I think that needs to be fixed.
|
|
|
Post by athena on Sept 1, 2019 18:54:54 GMT -6
I'm with Mavens on this one. I have no problem with someone owning a rifle or shotgun but for John Q. Public to carry around an AK47 is beyond ridiculous.
We definitely need stricter gun laws, but the NRA holds the Republican party by the purse strings.
|
|
|
Post by teaspoon on Sept 2, 2019 14:41:11 GMT -6
Just curious as to why the objections to a particular style of rifle like an AK...is it because it can hold more than 10 rounds? Is that the major disagreement , capacity? Im ok with limiting clips/mag capacity if that will save lives but I believe it won't. I can reload a 10 round clip/mag to another 10 round clip/mag in less that 5 seconds. As far as the style of gun , its true that most bolt operated deer guns don't or can't hold as many rounds as a "army" type rifle, and are ALOT slower to reload, but you can kill just as many people as fast with a pistol, magazine after magazine. Whats the solution then? Remove all guns from all people? And mavens, its illegal to carry ANY rifle in the back seat loaded or unloaded. I do not particularly have a problem with people who happen to like to shoot or own a AK style gun..I happen to own one myself.
|
|
|
Post by athena on Sept 2, 2019 20:19:41 GMT -6
Hi Teaspoon, The reason I have a problem with semi assault weapons like the AK47 is exactly because of the capacity of rounds that can be expended in such a short amount of time. Sure any gun can kill a lot of people, but it's a lot more likely that someone who wants to go on a killing spree can take out a lot more people with the above mentioned weapon than with a double barrel shotgun or say a 270 rifle.
It's also a fact that most homeowners who try to defend themselves with firearms usually end up victims of their own weapons during a robbery/home invasion.
This is no reflection on you and I certainly don't think you're mentally unstable or a threat to society, but you're only one person and there are a lot of other people out there who have no business owning a fire arm.
I grew up with a dad that took me quail hunting and dove hunting and I know how to handle a fire arm, but that being said, other than some bird hunting in my younger years the only other use I ever had for a gun was keeping coyotes and foxes away from my chickens.
I also believe that more psychological testing of some sort needs to be done before issuing permits to anyone. Maybe Sandyhook or one of the other mass killings could have been averted or at the very least minimized if semi assault weapons were not available to the public and stringent psychological evals were completed before people were allowed to own any type of firearm.
If you look at some other countries with gun ownership by the private sector such as Norway for instance, you will see their crime rate is a fraction of ours and it's because of their gun laws and types of weapons owned by the public.
In my humble opinion if even one life is saved by the previously mentioned changes then it is definitely worth it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 8:10:59 GMT -6
A 61-year-old Florida man shot and killed two of four intruders with an AR-15 rifle during a home invasion robbery in Summerfield, FL in July. I think seniors need superior firepower because of diminished physical prowess. Also, many seniors live alone and can be easily overpowered by violent thugs.
|
|
|
Post by athena on Sept 9, 2019 12:39:10 GMT -6
A 61-year-old Florida man shot and killed two of four intruders with an AR-15 rifle during a home invasion robbery in Summerfield, FL in July. I think seniors need superior firepower because of diminished physical prowess. Also, many seniors live alone and can be easily overpowered by violent thugs. Wouldn't a taser be just as effective in stopping the assailant(s) without having to kill them?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 13:41:12 GMT -6
No. The assailants were armed. The victim wouldn't have been able to get close enough to the assailants even with a handgun. Thankfully, he had the good sense to arm himself with a rifle, which has a greater range than a handgun. The average citizen needs equivalent firepower to what the criminal can possess to adequately defend themselves. Seniors are especially susceptible to violent thugs because of their frailty and diminished physical strength and need more powerful weapons.
|
|
|
Post by athena on Sept 9, 2019 15:03:47 GMT -6
No. The assailants were armed. The victim wouldn't have been able to get close enough to the assailants even with a handgun. Thankfully, he had the good sense to arm himself with a rifle, which has a greater range than a handgun. The average citizen needs equivalent firepower to what the criminal can possess to adequately defend themselves. Seniors are especially susceptible to violent thugs because of their frailty and diminished physical strength and need more powerful weapons. The vast majority of seniors would be better off with a good wireless alarm system. Also you mentioned seniors having diminished physical capacity which goes back to prove my earlier post about the majority of homeowners (especially the elderly) being victims of their own firearms and lets not forget to mention that a good number of seniors have diminished capacity mentally as well as physically so it would be that much easier for them to mistake a spouse or child for a burglar. The gun toting mentality in America needs to change before we have another mass killing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2019 18:20:17 GMT -6
You're at loggerheads with President Obama on this one. In 2013, President Obama commissioned a $10 million study to assess the effect of actual defensive uses of guns. The conclusions reached were that firearms Used for self-defense are an important crime deterrent, gun-use is the safest of studied self-protective strategies and there is no evidence that gun restrictions reduce gun violence.
Alarm systems are worthless because the police can not respond quickly enough to an unarmed citizen staring down the barrel of a gun if they respond at all. A 2005 supreme court ruling states that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect citizens.
|
|
|
Post by athena on Sept 11, 2019 18:43:46 GMT -6
First off my friend Fred Mertz lets address your second paragraph where you quote just enough of something you've googled to work to your advantage but neglected to explain to what this ruling really refers. This is all about the government trying to protect itself from being sued. As a result of " The Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - The court ruled that a municipality cannot be sued for failure to enforce a restraining order." This all came about from police not enforcing a restraining order which although heinous and despicable does not mean the police do not have a duty to serve and protect the community.
Note the Law Enforcement Oath:
"On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character or the public trust. I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions. I will always uphold the constitution, my community, and the agency I serve"
And then note The Law Enforcement Code of Ethics:
"As a law enforcement officer, my fundamental duty is to serve the community; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the constitutional rights of all to liberty, equality and justice."
You seem to be mixing Beaurocracy with the true capacity in which our dedicated law enforcement serves. I find this especially offensive on this particular day in general when 18 years ago so many of our country's finest law enforcement officers and other first responders gave their lives serving and protecting innocent civilians, many of whom also perished at no fault to said first responders.
Now to address your first paragraph and your claim that "firearms used for self defense are an important crime deterrent, gun-use is the safest of studied self-protective strategies and there is no evidence that gun restrictions reduce gun violence." The hard facts show that more firearms do NOT keep people safe. IN FACT THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE.
"The claim that gun ownership stops crime is common in the U.S., and that belief drives laws that make it easy to own and keep firearms. But about 30 careful studies show more guns are linked to more crimes: murders, rapes, and others. Far less research shows that guns help. Interviews with people in heavily gun-owning towns show they are not as wedded to the crime defense idea as the gun lobby claims."
Scientists compare what happens to gun-toting people, in gun-dense regions, with what happens to people and places with few firearms. They also study whether crime victims are more or less likely to own guns than others, and they track what transpires when laws make it easier for people to carry guns or use them for self-defense.
Most of this research—and there have been several dozen peer-reviewed studies—punctures the idea that guns stop violence. In a 2015 study using data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least. Also in 2015 a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not.
This evidence has been slow to accumulate because of restrictions placed by Congress on one of the country's biggest injury research funders, the CDC. Since the mid-1990s the agency has been effectively blocked from supporting gun violence research. And the NRA and many gun owners have emphasized a small handful of studies that point the other way.
At this point let me interject a high impact study. "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Authur Kellerman now at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and his colleagues published a number of studies suggesting that both murder and suicide were more common among people who kept guns in their homes. The risks were indicated by odds ratios: ratios greater than one meant more people with guns in their homes would be victims than people in gun free homnes. The figures they reported reflected increased odds. For instance, in homes that owned guns for self defense, the odds ratio of 1.7 referred to a 70% increase of being murdered at home(referring to homes with firearms).
And some other facts to show why gun laws need to be much stricter including psych evals for anyone desiring to own a firearm as well as the type of guns owned by the public should be restricted:
In a 5-year span ranging from 2005 to 2010, 3,800 people died at the hand of a gun accidentally. Of those victims, almost 1,300 of them were younger than 25 years old. Generally, the states with LOOSER gun laws had the HIGHER number of DEATHS.
According to the CDC, 93 people die every day from guns. That's almost 40,000 deaths a year. Of those deaths, suicide was the reason twice as often as homicide.
What's the best way to keep your home safe?
There's no foolproof way to prevent a home invasion. These tips may help keep criminals away, though. Always make your home look occupied. Leave lights on and the exterior manicured. Don't leave mail stacked up in the mailbox. Have your grass cut even while you are away. Lock all doors and windows, including when you go to bed. Test all locks on windows and doors periodically and replace as necessary. Keep everything stored out of sight.
Knowing the statistics should keep you on your toes. Constantly monitor your home's safety. Becoming too comfortable can make you a victim. If you're concerned with protecting your home against burglars, it may be worthwhile to invest in a home security system."
Sources and References:
The National Academies US Department of Justice FBI Office of Justice Programs JSU Gun Owners of America Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Every Town FBI Bureau of Justice Statistics
|
|