Would it be possible for you to dial back your hyper-emotive responses and instead be pragmatic, logical, and rational?
Listen, I know that you probably feel that you're in a corner with a bunch of gun-toting Americans closing in on you and that's why you said what I bolded above, but I guarantee you that not one single gun advocate/ owner on this board would ever in their right mind admit that anyone without training should ever carry a gun in any capacity--be it neighboorhood watch or hunting.
Meh, if anything it's kind of fun. Good entertainment during a slow day at work. But based on Frank's "...the only thing they'll protect you from is harmless loitering?" post, it sure seems like he's completely ok with any neighbourhood watch worker carrying and potentially using a gun, and obviously Zimmerman was ok with it as well. Those are the only two I meant to refer to. For the record, I grew up with/was trained with rifles, but I haven't touched one in years, don't really want to, and think handguns are fucking stupid. EDIT: And for the neg rep points crying about how I want to take away your guns, please do me a favour and actually read what I wrote. Not once have I said everyone should give up their precious guns. I'm pointing out how, in a country with by far the most gun murders in the modern world, you (almost) all seem passionately against even the CONVERSATION of gun law reform. Even though at this point you actually have more guns than people. And in this, and the seemingly never-ending cases of high-profile shootings, you'll talk about race, shaky testimony, politics, and even certain laws, but the ONLY topic that's off limits, is a discussion on the absurdly easy access to the thing that actually does the shooting, and completely lose your shit over the person who suggests it may be a factor. That's all.
Consequently, how has mutating into a breathlessly apologetic, guilt-stricken, nerf-coated, nanny state worked out for your ilk? Changing your ways isn't necessarily the best solution either.
Um, well we've avoided a major recession (so far), have less unemployment, higher average income, universal health care (another difference between U.S. and the rest of the west), are loved world wide to the point that you guys pretend to be us when you go overseas, and seem to shoot each other a hell of a lot less than you guys, so...pretty good!
They are just two different environments. America is what it is: a country that has more guns than citizens now. And practically all of them are schooled in safe practices with them but of course bad shit WILL happen. You aren't going to change what they love by teling them to get rid of what they love, it's in their Bill Of Rights and fluent in pop culture since pop culture began. They grow up around them in their life so it's in a lot of their blood. There are around 12,000 gun deaths on average in America per year over the last five years. That's a lot, but there's over 50,000 automobile deaths and people seem perfectly fine with that statistic, since it means they don't have to travel around on the back of a fucking camel. My country and the States are night and day when it comes to the volume of gun ownership, but I can't say one is better than the other society-wise because I've only lived in one. They are two different places. We are much larger in space, they have ten times our population and were founded on revolution. I don't own a gun, so I can't relate with many others on here simply because I've never feeled the need to own one, probabloy due to where I'm from. It's a different world out there. I've always lived in safe parts of town and never really felt threatened with where I live. A gun argument on here is a flame war, always has been. Non gun-owners think they're right, and gun owners think that they're right. Both have their reasons, but nobody will "win" this.
With respect to changing gun laws... This may seem overly simplistic, but changing gun laws will only make it more difficult for lawful carriers to carry. Criminals who want to shoot someone just because, will get handguns illegally in the first place, making it difficult to trace the weapons. That said, I think it's too easy here in Texas to buy a handgun. I could go into a basspro and walk out 15 minutes later with anything I want, granted I'm not a convicted felon. No waiting period. In Florida, I believe it's 5 days. Maybe 3? I don't remember. Now with all THAT said, this problem would still be a problem and George Zimmerman would have still shot Martin, regardless. Just like that crazy-as-fuck dude who shot Gabby Giffords. Changing the law woud solve nothing.
Well said (minus the car ownership comparison), but again, I'm not saying everyone should have their guns taken away, and I'm CERTAINLY not saying that one country is better (though I'm obviously going to respond to something like ODEN'S post). All I'm saying is that they (people on the board and Americans in general) seem vehemently opposed to even considering the CONVERSATION that maybe, possibly, the country with more guns than people and a vastly higher gun murder rate could use just a teensy bit of gun law reform. Bringing up race, politics, questionable testimony and all the rest certainly have their place, but to ignore weak-to-non-existent gun legislation and pretend gun laws (or lack thereof), and freak the fuck out on anyone who thinks it might play a role as well, seems absurd.
This topic isn't one I wanted to touch, but as my name has been invoked I feel required to at least admit the truth. I am a straight up thug. I know how to use a firearm, too, which reinforces the evidence that I am an American.
You really surprised by our furor on here after you say that our gun laws, as pertaining to the 2nd Amendment, are worthless because our Founding Fathers owned a bunch of Niggers(TM) ? First you'll find that, that's a stupid line of logic, as all of our other Constitutional rights should be just as invalid because the founding fathers (not all of whom supported slavery) owned slaves. As for peoples unwillingness to converse about new gun laws. Look at how uncompromising the Americans on this board were when the subject of limiting the freedom of the press and speech came up in that thread. There are very good reasons to be just as uncompromising with all of your constitutional rights, including the second amendment. I don't have time right now to get into detail as I am on my lunch break. Basically you don't limit personal freedom based on what criminals might or will do, particularly if that freedom is enshrined in the constitution. If you think gun laws are too lax you are woefully ignorant of our justice systems punishments for gun based crimes and the amount of gun restrictions in general. The issue shouldnt be limiting a constitutional right, the issue should be what to do about causes the level of crime in the first place.
Weed is a pain killer and relaxant for me. It makes me feel about as thuggish as Doug Henning. I grew up in in the suburbs. However, don't let the smooth taste fool you: I'm from the street. Just because I've never owned a gun doesn't mean I couldn't strap a gat and lay a bitch flat.
Even if the gun laws in the US were restricted, Zimmerman could be considered a low-level arm of law enforcement who has taken criminal justice classes, received instruction on how to carry and use a firearm and had a license. Given the fact that there are more guns than people in the US, it's highly unlikely that gun law reform would be able to touch this situation. If the laws are the issue, why not talk about the "Stand your ground" laws that allows someone to legally kill someone else. Part of this debate should be centered on the fact that it was perfectly ok for Zimmerman to have his weapon, but not at all ok for him to use it. I think most gun owners in the US could break up a fight or de-escalate a situation without pulling a firearm, much less using it. The question in my mind is did he panic? If so, in the situation with a "thug" on top of you beating you in the face, I can understand how he pulled his weapon and acted incredibly rashly. Was that action criminally rash? That's why we have courts, folks.
I just had a brief conversation with Plaxico Burress and he agrees, gun laws in New York city are waaaaay to lenient.
Bill Maher is talking about this tonight, in the monologue and in his first interview. Great points, check it out if you can.
Just to provide more anecdata for the gun control debate: I walked out of a gun dealership with a handgun the same day I entered it. I didn't have a license, either...all I had to do was provide my school ID. The girl who bought one with me? Had been hospitalized for mental illness against her will, openly talked about her suicidal impulses in the gun store, and also didn't have her license on her. She too flashed her student ID...which had been expired for about a year. She walked out with a handgun also. There was an obviously thuggish dude in there looking to purchase an AK-47. He handled the weapon, turned to his girlfriend with a wad of cash, and walked her over to the counter where she "bought" the weapon...which she handed right back to him about three steps away from the counter. That scared the shit out of me. I am a member of the NRA, I own a handgun, and I am 100% in favor of more restrictions on legally purchased weapons. More background checks, any waiting period whatsoever, and mandatory training would all be good things in my opinion.
You know why you never hear about a white guy getting killed in a black neighborhood at night? Because white guys don't walk around black neighborhoods at night.
Did your friend end up killing herself or anyone else? What about the guy with the AK, we're there any deaths from a machine gun on the news? If not, your point doesn't hold much ground. Also, I doubt it was an actual Ak-47. You can't just go buy a machine gun just like that. You need a Class-3 license (pretty expensive) and in PA the weapons have to be approved by local law enforcement before you can obtain them, and they can refuse you for any reason without explanation.
The crimes you describe are already on the books. Do we need more restrictions or better enforcement of current laws?
You probably know this, but others may not so I'm going to post it. It was most likely semi-automatic and not qualify as a machine gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_the_AK-47
Agreed. More restrictions keeps firearms out of the hands of responsible citizens, not criminals. It fixes nothing. Next we'll hear from someone that we should confiscate all firearms, right? I know that is what some of the board members think is the answer. Well I don't like your opinion and I think you should be restricted from publicly stating it, so I will petition the Government to revoke your right to free speech.