I am quite aware of what you are insinuating as well. And the idea of arming teachers is ludicrous. Let's say that puts 30 more guns in the school, increasing the odds that a student will disarm him/her and shoot him/her because he doesn't want to do his homework.
What am I insinuating? And I said nothing about arming teachers, however I did say that the most common demominator in all of these incidents of mass shootings are the fact that most are "Gun Free Zones" which the Mass Murder know! And as expected, you didn't read my analogy or you choose not to make any sense of it! What people are not noting is that it doesn't take a shot being fired to deter crime! Criminals are evil, bad, nasty, psycho, and whatever, but they are NOT stupid! If they think there is a chance that they might not be able to be successful in their plan, they will not do it or move to a place that is an easier target! Did you ever wonder why when the people with the guns show up, they usually end up committing suicide?
BTW Gassy is NOT lying about the proposals being introduced on many state, local and Federal levels! They do want to take them and have proposed such. In my state of CT and many others, they have actually proposed requiring ALL gun owners to purchase liability insurance! Not Convicted Sex Offenders, not paroled Criminals, but Law Abiding Gun owners whom they perceive to all be potential mass murderers!
You have to buy insurance for your car, why not your gun? A gun owner is likelier to kill an innocent person than someone who doesn't own a gun. That's only logical. As is the increased chance of death with a gun in the home. But as I said, you will not recognize logic. But your paranoia is evident. Who exactly is out to get you and diminish your rights? Why? Because they think you are a danger to others?
Here Soupie, since Canada has no second amendment and is gun free I thought you might like to know about this.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/02/21/toronto-whitby-shooting-durham-regional-police.html
Canada is not gun free. I'm quite aware of that. And most of the illegal weapons come from the U.S. . Trust me, I'm aware of the gun deaths here. The GTA has about 4 million people and averages about 50-60 gun deaths a year. Compare that to any metropolitan area in the U.S. of any similar population. And try not to patronize while you clean your gun and prepare to shoot a minority.
You have to buy insurance for your car, why not your gun? A gun owner is likelier to kill an innocent person than someone who doesn't own a gun. That's only logical. As is the increased chance of death with a gun in the home. But as I said, you will not recognize logic. But your paranoia is evident. Who exactly is out to get you and diminish your rights? Why? Because they think you are a danger to others?
$6 billionEstimated revenue generated by the gun and ammunition industry in the U.S., according to an analysis by business research firm Hoovers.
All of which goes into the coffers of corporations which donate heavily to the NRA, which is non profit, to advocate more guns so the corporations can make more money. and so it goes.........i guess 1.1 billion to the taxpayers is just collateral damage to the corporate machine.
The following excerpt might be the best explanation of why people own and carry firearms that I have seen! Of course it will be met with the usually troll like responses but some will understand the thinking behind it!
"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.
Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a armed mugger to do his job.That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.
It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
You have to buy insurance for your car, why not your gun? A gun owner is likelier to kill an innocent person than someone who doesn't own a gun. That's only logical. As is the increased chance of death with a gun in the home. But as I said, you will not recognize logic. But your paranoia is evident. Who exactly is out to get you and diminish your rights? Why? Because they think you are a danger to others?
Ah yeah, I knew this one was coming! First, driving a car is not a right, it is a privilege of the State in the US and mostly likely the same in Canada! Therefore, the state has a right to require insurance, however if a state of Federal government is allowed to require those exercising a right to purchase liability insurance just to exercise the right, are they not infringing on that right? I know what your answer will be but if that is allowed, what is to stop them from going further and requiring people to buy insurance to exercise other rights? I think it's funny that some of the same people that complain about corporations such as insurance companies as being one of the big problems with the world, suddenly want these same companies to profit from government requiring people to purchase more insurance from them. This is much like the health care law in the US.
"A gun owner is likelier to kill an innocent person than someone who doesn't own a gun"? Oh you mean like LAPD who shot at 7 unarmed civilians mistaking them for Dorner, or and NYPD officer who recently shot 6 innocent unarmed civilians while returning fire at a criminal who fired at them? (They missed the gunman btw) This comment is misleading at best!
I've explained multiple times the gun control proposals by politicians in multiple states and the Federal government but instead you refuse to read them and realize their intentions.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!