I don't doubt that banning handguns is a near impossible feat in the USA, but anyone who doesn't think that there is a direct correlation between violent crime and hand guns is out to lunch. Americans just love their guns and are willing to risk lives for that right.
I'd venture to bet there were over 30 000 gun related deaths in the USA last year. 99.9% of which hand guns.
Yeah if they are motivated. The market demand is what drives underground business. If a kid on a school ground can easily find drugs, I'm sure it wouldn't be hard for an adult to track down a weapon if they needed one.
Drugs are a little different product than guns. You can make big money selling drugs because there's a large customer base who will make regular purchases. How many people want to buy guns on a regular basis? And how are kids going to be able to afford an expensive purchase like an illegal gun?
Quote:
Simply banning guns is terribly short sighted...you can't just strip a basic right of people when a bad incident occurs. It's only going to get worse unfortunately, as this political unrest will soon become economic unrest and the whole country will be angry.
It's not to Canadians (and most other Western democracies), but in the US, gun ownership is a right protected by the 2nd Amendment. Banning guns is a non-starter in the US for both political and practical reasons. There are just far too many guns out there to put that genie back in the bottle.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
Well, the Constitution disagrees. Also, look to past totalitarian governments to see what happens when citizens have no way to defend themselves from tyranny.
I have a hard time understanding the "defend themselves from tyranny" argument given that the US military has stealth planes, military choppers, grenade launchers, tanks.... any militia that thinks they can storm the White House to "take back the country" would be wiped off earth before they could fire a second round.
If the goal was give the people the ability to violently overthrow the government (which indeed it was at the time of the writing of the constitution) then you would have to give the people the right to own grenade launchers. In which case, 17 people would be a very, very low casualty total for crackpots.
I have a hard time understanding the "defend themselves from tyranny" argument given that the US military has stealth planes, military choppers, grenade launchers, tanks.... any militia that thinks they can storm the White House to "take back the country" would be wiped off earth before they could fire a second round.
If the goal was give the people the ability to violently overthrow the government (which indeed it was at the time of the writing of the constitution) then you would have to give the people the right to own grenade launchers. In which case, 17 people would be a very, very low casualty total for crackpots.
Well actually, the 2nd amendment was not necessarily to allow citizens to take over Washington, but for the states to keep citizen militias to defend against federal tyranny.
Besides, the Posse Comitatus Act was written to restrict the military from acting as a police force within the country.
No because they couldn't: He is an atheist. The Congresswomen's father-in-law had blamed the tea party; which judging by the gunman's reading material and hatred of the Bible is unlikely.
No because they couldn't: He is an atheist. The Congresswomen's father-in-law had blamed the tea party; which judging by the gunman's reading material and hatred of the Bible is unlikely.
Plus the fact that Tea Partiers can't read.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Reggie Dunlop For This Useful Post:
It doesn't take a lot to look at the distribution of representation from the state of Arizona to see a disturbing pattern. Of the 10 individuals that represent the state federally only 3 are Democrats. Of the 60 people who work in the state house only 20 are Democrats. During the 2010 election two offices of Democrat candidates were riddled with bullets, including the representative shot earlier today. This is a Republican state and if you harbor any liberal leanings you are best served keeping those views behind closed doors. If this were a random protest it is more likely that a Republican representative would have been shot. More of them and they make more appearances than their Democrat counterparts.
I'm surprised some are still holding out hope that this was not a politically motivated shooting. Arizona has been a powder keg waiting to go off. SB1070 and the other series of laws passed in the lead up to the 2010 election have created some serious divides and fueled the paranoia of many on the fringe, and Arizona has a lot on the fringe. Sarah Palin is a hero in Arizona and what she says becomes gospel. Sharon Angle developed quite a following in neighboring Arizona as well, thanks to her 2nd Amendment remedies tough talk. Their dog whistle rhetoric, along with the many talking heads on the Clear Channel talk radio network, continue to fan the flames of hatred in the heads of the fringe. It was only a matter of time before something like this happened. To claim this was not politically motivated is like saying the Dr. George Tiller was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Stimpy For This Useful Post:
If you look back on this incident as isolated in two years then I will awknowledge being the panic-driven sissy of the thead.
Even if this incident has nothing to do with politics, the left wing cannot continue to ignore the hate-mongering of the right - and the right (as well as the ignorant) will not mellow in the near future without recanting their entire rhetoric.
On a political state, there's been a lot of I guess you could call it hate on both sides of the political spectrum. A lot of the anger from the right has been caused by being marginalized and insulted by the Left.
Neither side is on the side of angels.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I can not fathom how someone takes a bullet at point blank range to the head and does not die.
That's pretty incredible.
I once saw a steer take a shot gun plug in between the eyes at about 2 feet away and only drop to his front knees before getting back up. It took a 22 bullet afterwards to kill him. A 22 pistol probably would have killed her on the spot because it would have rattled around inside of her head instead of breaking out the other side.
He also might have been useing full metal jackets which would have limited the damage. That might also explain how he got so many hits in before someone reacted. Some shots might have gone through more than one person.
“Are you afraid? Are you fearful today?”
“You know, I’m not. We’ve had hundreds and hundreds of protesters over the course of the last several months. Our office corner has become a place where the Tea Party has congregated. And the rhetoric has become incredibly heated. Not just the calls, but the emails, the slurs. So things have really gotten spun up. But you gotta think about it. Our democracy is a light, a beacon really around the world because we effect change at the ballot box, and not because of these outbursts — of violence in certain cases, and the yelling, and it’s just … you know, change is important, it’s a part of our process, but it’s really important that we focus on the fact that we have a democratic process.”
“I think it’s important for all leaders, not just leaders of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party … community leaders, figures in our community to say, ‘Look, we can’t stand for this.’ I mean, this is a situation where people really need to realize that this rhetoric, and firing people up, and even things … For example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the way she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district. And when people do that, they’ve gotta realize that there’s consequences to that action.”
“In the years that some of my colleagues have served, twenty, thirty years, they’ve never seen it like this. We have to work out our problems by negotiating, working together, hopefully Democrats and Republicans.”
–Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, March 25, 2010.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Reggie Dunlop For This Useful Post:
Holy crap people, the 2nd Amendment was written over 200 years ago, I'm fairly certain if the for-fathers had known how out of control guns would become it never would have been written.
I don't doubt that banning handguns is a near impossible feat in the USA, but anyone who doesn't think that there is a direct correlation between violent crime and hand guns is out to lunch. Americans just love their guns and are willing to risk lives for that right.
I'd venture to bet there were over 30 000 gun related deaths in the USA last year. 99.9% of which hand guns.
I have something better. There is probably a direct correlation between violent crime, guns, drugs....and an unprotected border.
Gun control won't stop violent crime, nor will it keep guns off the streets. The majority of gun crime is a result of people involved in illegal activities. Gun control won't stop that. The 'war on drugs' has not stopped 'drug trade'....nor has it helped in any way outside of being a colossal waste of money.
Likewise a 'war on guns'....won't stop gun violence.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
Holy crap people, the 2nd Amendment was written over 200 years ago, I'm fairly certain if the for-fathers had known how out of control guns would become it never would have been written.
