Also nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Right to bear arms. What you DO with that arm isn't protected. Speech is protected. Carry on.
Speech. Fire! Libel. Same protections as the 2nd. That is, if you abuse the right, you can commit a crime and do the time.
Just think if they didn't have guns, you wouldn't had to of typed the word "shooters". It would have been punchers or stabbers or slappers or hitters......and there probably wouldn't be as many people dead, huh?
There were 16,000 murders last year. About 1/3 did not involve guns. It seems to me that if someone wants to kill someone else, they'll find a way (and they do).
Interesting to see Marazul and a democrat agreeing on something. http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/...ol_shooting_ginny_b.html#incart_river_default
I love this line of thinking. Keep daring some wacko. If that freak in Vegas wasn't a dirt poor douchebag he might have had a car. Anyone could kill 10 people in 10 minutes with a car. I hate to even talk about it because it could happen and I would feel bad like I jinxed it.
Not the same. Freedom of speech. You are free to speak. Right to bear arms. Free to own a gun. speech is an action, all of which should theoretically be free. arms are a noun. You can have them.
I actually have no idea what you are speaking about. What happened in Vegas and what does it have to do with my post? Sent from my baller ass iPhone 5S...... FAMS!
Actually we don't agree at all. "Burdick, D-Portland, introduced bills in previous legislative sessions that would have made it a crime to endanger a minor by allowing access to a firearm. Under a*similar bill introduced in the 2013 legislative session by Rep. Alissa Keny-Guyer, D-Portland, a person found guilty of that crime would have faced up to a year in jail, a $6,250 fine, or both. The person would also be banned from owning a gun for five years." I don't want the parent (father) to be fined. That is not nearly sufficient. He is responsible for educating the boy in using the gun and all other things including facing conflict without the aid of a gun and dealing with anger without resorting to use of a gun or any other weapon. If in his opinion ( the father) the boy is not up to this trustworthy standard then he must see to it that the weapons are not available to the boy. The father is responsible for the boys actions where weapons are used against society just as if he had committed the crime himself. Not just liable for some pissy ass fine to make up for failure to perform his responsibility. You ask how it was when I was raising a son. Did he have access to my weapons? He did and what I did not say was, he also had access to his. I did spend considerable time training him in the use of firearms. He had to earn the trust to have access. I also have a grandson 17 years old and he has not yet gained this trust, he has no access to weapons. I had a discussion about this subject with my daughter only a few days before this latest shooting. I do take this subject very seriously and I do practice exactly what I preach. That Democrat ain't in the game.
Come to think of it, I keep the access to weapons for myself just a little difficult, I do have them ready for duty but I must be awake and on my feet able to reach quite high after navigating around some furniture. Just a precaution to make sure I am indeed awake.
You said without guns there wouldn't be as many dead people. This kid in Oregon killed one kid. The freaks in Vegas killed three people. If someone wanted to kill large numbers of people a car would be more useful than a gun. People run from gunshots. Everyone who wants to get rid of guns says the same thing. Less guns equals less dead people. One of these days some nut is going to prove that waaaaaaayyyyyy wrong because it is.
To bear is an action. In any case, I'm not at all comfortable with people using guns to harm other people. But I'm also not interested in disarming NB3 or blue3 or any of hundreds of millions of law abiding people because a tiny minority of people abuse weapons. I'm not aligned with the idea of trying to identify psychos before they take action, because it is sure to be imperfect and trample on the liberty of everyone. It seems to me there are always some small % of the people who are psychos who take action. That we have a growing population (it was maybe 100M in the '20s, over 310M today) means you should see more abuses of guns. Yet we see fewer. These are murders per 100,000 population: I don't know if I'd be against amending the 2nd through proper means, but I'm pretty sure there'd be armed conflict as a result.
I don't think HCP gets it... But, yeah for example, like this, and this is just some of em from google. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack (this one was more of a terrorist attack, but still shows the damage done without a gun) or... http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...gh-school-student-killed-in-attack-at-school/ or... http://www.post-gazette.com/local/w...lin-Regional-High-School/stories/201404090148 or http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/09/knife-attacks-lone-star-college/2069347/ It doesn't matter the god damned weapon of choice. Crazy, misguided, non-parented, jacked up kids will continue to cause harm to one another until the root-cause is found.
A guy with a knife is more likely to be stopped by a gun. Who wants to try and disarm a crazy fuck with a knife? I'd run him over...With a car.
I'll take my chances with somebody attacking me with a knife or car over a gun is what I'm saying. Sent from my baller ass iPhone 5S...... FAMS!
You won't cut the number by 2/3. You may not cut it at all. People will find other ways to kill, perhaps even more deadly (like setting fires).
I'm fine with the murder rate not changing as long as they earn it; guns make it too easy. Inherent American laziness will keep the murder rate down.
