It is ______ to carry a weapon of any kind, even if it is for self-defence
A) your responsibility
B) your right
C) a criminal offence
@ almost 3 years ago
New York, NY 10028, USA
Offence? Are you asking if it's illegal in a land speaking the Queen's English? Or do you mean offense?
@ almost 3 years ago
Naperville, IL 60540, USA
Ah AMI you caught me. Yeah, that's a question on the UK citizenship test. Knowing that, what do you think the answer is now?
@ almost 3 years ago
Carnegie Hill, New York, NY
I would guess C, only bobbies are allowed to have them
Yeah C big time.
Yorkville, New York, NY
It's illegal in Malaysia too but you'd be insane not to have something on you.
D) a loaded question with weasel words.
@ almost 3 years ago
Martinsburg, WV 25401, United States
Hey, I wasn't the one who put it on the citizenship test lol.
when I was 16 my uncle asked me
"was jesus insane, a liar or god?"
its the first thing I thought about when I read this question.
@ almost 3 years ago
Schoolcraft, MI 49087, USA
C.S. Lewis'...liar lunitic or lord?
@ almost 3 years ago
Arbutus, MD, USA
The Jesus question is valid
@ almost 3 years ago
Buford, GA 30519, USA
not liar, from everything I've heard...you aren't a liar if you truly believe a lie, after all.
@ almost 3 years ago
Lakeland, MN, USA
yeah I don't think most people would settle on that one either
A, B, and C...... Depending on who you are.
John Galt... Bernie Is A Socialist
@ almost 3 years ago
North Olmsted, OH, USA
D. For the most part, unnecessary
@ almost 3 years ago
Warwick, NY 10990, United States
PLC is right
Arden Hills, MN, USA
...unless there is a zombie apocalypse, in which case you better strap that gun to your hand so you don't drop it.
What bout the other part...when it's necessary?
Midtown, Atlanta, GA
The way it's worded, unnecessary. Never necessary to "carry a weapon of any kind". Narrow it down and I would say A and B.
Schenectady, NY , United States
People keep thinking "gun". But it says weapon of any kind, which means basically anything. If the cops are convinced you are planning on using it as a weapon, you're in trouble.
New York, NY 10016, USA
Anything that can only be used as a weapon, including pepper spray is banned outright.
It's never necessary to carry a weapon of any kind?
i strongly disagree
Tucker, GA, USA
It depends where you're spending the day
Villa Park, IL, USA
What good is owning a weapon and leaving it at home?
It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not having it.
UK version "self-defence spray". It'll help the police ID the guy *after* he rapes someone. http://www.crimepreventionproducts.co.uk/personal-alarms/uv-personal-attack-defence-spray-made-by-mace
A bullet through the skull usually allows quick identification of the rapist as well
im realing leaning towards this guy being ai.
He's an absolute turd.
I couldn't give a fück less whether he's a spoofer or not.
Jefferson, GA, USA
They both have a penchant for intentionally inflammatory commentary
On this test do they lock you up or send you for reconditioning if you answer A or B?
@ almost 3 years ago
Arlington Heights, PA, USA
how did spoofer get 4 points if the points are broken? Old spoofing account?
Winder, GA 30680, USA
well thank you.
Exchange Place North, Jersey City, NJ
the correct answer is B of course.
Govt doesn't grant this right either.
Fear not plc, NY still ranks dead last for gun rights according to GnA.
Jersey City, NJ 07310, USA
OMG! Then it must be one of the most dangerous states when it comes to gun violence, correct? I'll help you out. It's one of the safest. Imagine that?
New York, NY , United States
I don't know if that has to do with gun rights or lack of them. NYC for example hasn't changed any of our strict laws about it from when things were dangerous here. Yet it's gotten a lot safer.
1990 NYC had 2,605 murders. 2013 it had 334. I don't think gun laws were any less strict in 1990.
The State of NY is middle of the pack when it comes to overall violent crime
The fact is that crime is less related to gun laws than either side would like to believe. Culture and economic conditions play a bigger role than gun laws.
Given all other factors unchanged, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens does reduce crime in my opinion.
Stats are irrelevant anyway. Self defense is a natural right. You cannot effectively exercise that right without firearms when faced with armed criminals.
But we're talking gun violence. NY is one of the safest states when it comes to gun violence.
Stats are only irrelevant when they destroy your argument.
Actually no, we're talking gun rights. My post directed at you had to do with gun rights in the state of New York and the fact that it comes in dead last. You are talking crime.
Historic Downtown, Jersey City, NJ
Crime and corresponding statistics has no relevance when it comes to the OP which has to do with gun rights. The answer is still B
Journal Square, Jersey City, NJ
The state of New York tyrannically oppresses its citizens. That is not something of which should be proud.
Jersey City, NJ 07306, USA
Where are the frickin chicks anymore?
As this app closes out it won't be forgotten it will be remembered as Homo map
we should blow each other
@ almost 3 years ago
Strongsville, OH 44136, USA
That's what guys do in prison, they blow each other and bang each other in the ass then lift weights.. Very very very .....contradictory
Dont be a drama queen. The stricter gun laws are keeping the citizens safer. From gun violence. There is no need for joe schmo to carry a .50 cal. None. You believe the correct answer is B. I disagree. Most gun laws work
Nothing is 100% perfect. But the states with the stricter gun laws tend to have less gun violence. The states with the more lenient gun laws tend to have more gun violence. The same goes for at the countries.
Isn't overall violence what really matters?
We don't need a society where everyone is armed and we dont need a society where nobody is armed. Sensible laws to meet in the middle. Safeguards. The decent folk can own. the POSs can't. Simple.
Overall violence is too broad when discussing gun possession and laws.
And the effects thereof
Sure, but perhaps we are missing the forest here?
Not when the topic is trees.
I like your answer even though I disagree with the depth of your position
If you want to discuss overall crime, fine. We can discuss that. With gun violence being a part of that conversation. But when discussing the gun culture and the ramifications of lax gun control, looking at the broad
statistics of violence dilutes the topic at hand. What does rape have to do with gun laws? What does a husband beating his wife have to do with gun laws? Nothing. Unless you're trying to dilute an opposing view.
We are talking about the ease of ability to carry a firearm and what harm carrying or not carrying can do to a society as a whole.
Giuliani definitely fixed a lot of our crime problem, hats off to that guy.
Hopefully the groundhog killer won't mess up that legacy.
You're talking in nonsensical baseless generalities. What defines the "ease of the ability to carry a firearm" for law abiding citizens more than a states willingness to issue concealed carry licenses? 5 states in this nation have no license
requirement whatsoever, 37 are will-issue while the remaining 8 are may-issue (effectively no issue in reality). So 42 states allow anyone with a clean background who wishes to carry a firearm in public to do so. Is there a huge disparity in gun
crime between those 42 states and the 8 that heavily restrict ccws? No. Some of the worst places are in those 8 states like Camden NJ.
The idea that gun control keeps people safer is entirely based on fallacies. Gun control creates victims. Like Amanda Collins - a concealed carry holder who left her firearm home because Colorado doesn't allow carry on college campuses - because this
makes colleges safer don't you know. She was brutally raped on campus in a parking garage 50 ft from the security office. There are countless examples like this. Forgive me for sounding cliche but criminals don't follow the law. It really is as
simple as that.
Next thing you know you are going to tell us that drug laws keep drugs off the street! :)
Yeah states with May issue laws have less gun violence than states with shall issue laws. I'm sure it's just coincidence. I'm sure it is. Must be. I mean, you say it's unrelated so it must be. We all know ur never wrong.
After all. Amanda was brutally attacked. We all know that's never happened in any shall issue state ever. Ever! That's pretty solid proof you have there. Facts are facts. No armed person has ever been attacked.
Shall issue states are crime free havens. Facts! The more guns the safer everyone is. These other countries with heavily restricted gun ownership have much higher gun crime. Because criminals don't follow the law there
Wait! That might not be entirely true. Actually. That's all not true at all. The states with lax gun laws have higher gun violence #s.
As a matter of fact even the less gun crime in stricter gun law states are attributed to lax gun law states.
But like you said. Statistics don't matter. They're slaughtering your paper thin argument. They can't matter. Not to you.
What are you going to say next? That cocaine and heroin use is worse today than it was in the 70s? LMAO
That example actually was in a shall issue state, but one that chooses to restrict where you can carry.
She was raped BECAUSE the colorodo legislature believed the same nonsense that you do and decided to disallow carry on college campuses, thereby leaving her unable to defend herself.
You didn't even bother to Google her name. You just made assumptions like you are about gun crime being lower in no issue states.
Same with drug usage. You conclude its lower because of laws and completely discount other factors because that assumption supports the point of view you are pushing. Cultural changes have nothing to do with it? Is it lower because laws have made
it so hard to get because they are so effective? Bahahhaha. That's a joke. You and I both know that if you want it we can get it. That's a fact.
If you really believe such a disparity exists between those 42 and 8 statesthen show me the money. show me the statistics that back your position
Columbia, NJ 07832, USA
She was raped because a savage decided to rape her. Not because that college decided to not allow guns.
, , United States
I already provided the link that shows this. Did you miss it? Scroll up. You'll find it.
You're angry for no reason. Relax. Stop misrepresenting my position. Stop being so emotional. Look at the facts. Look at the chart and see where the May carry states rank. Bottom 10. All but 1 I believe.
focus boy, focus! Guns here. Guns. Not drugs. I've already spanked you on that over and over again. Guns here. Drugs later. Focus.
more guns doesn't = less gun violence. You may wish it did but the stats prove you wrong. The stats that don't matter to you. Cause they prove you wrong. You're too emotional. Take it easy.
I see your tactics haven't changed lol. Do not mistake passion for anger, you are not capable of making me angry. Not once in all the years on this app have you done so. I could no more be angry at you than I could at a rabid dog for biting someone.
Downtown Jersey City, Jersey City, NJ
hehe. I understand when you take an anti liberty positions, you cannot help it and that's okay. :)
I did miss your link but that's ok, looking at it I do see that it is from a left-wing anti-gun website and that it does nothing to link legal firearm ownership and carrying in public to the rates that it claims. You would need to post the stats
related only to legal gun ownership and crime to make the case you were trying to make. Let us not pretend that these groups whether pro or anti gun start out with data and attempt to shoehorn that data into fitting their argument and supporting
their position. For every anti gun link that you post I could post one pro gun with statistics that support the opposite. http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/tag/more-guns-less-crime/
Now in the Colorado case you are correct that the perpetrator of the crime is ultimately responsible for it, but the state bears some of that burden as well... not the college, it was the state which banned guns on college campuses. If the state had
not prevented this woman from carrying her firearm on campus, she would not have been raped that day. Undeniable.
Do you recognize the existence of unalienable natural rights? Is self defense not one of those rights?
The person who quotes GnA as a source now complains about a source. Classic!
My tactics wont change either. I return the respect that I am given. For better or for worse. But thats irrelevant. You do come off as an angry individual. Whether you are or not.
I am pro gun. I own guns myself and encourage others to do so as well. I just dont support irresponsible gun ownership. Nor should the government. I support reasonable gun laws. Reasonable restrictions.
No matter the source, the fact is that gun violence is lower in may issue states than in shall issue states. Period. If you want to squint in the dark to look for what you're looking for, knock yourself out.
And to assume that that young lady wouldnt have been victimized had she been allowed to carry her gun is laughable. Should I post the numerous incidents of law enforcement having their guns taken from them and killed?
A source for state rankings for gun freedoms, not statistics. There is a difference and your failure to recognize that is not surprising. Are you suggesting that their rankings are not accurate? Would you prefer a better source for rankings? Does NY
not belong on the bottom of that list?
There is nothing here laughable about this case. This is not an assumption but rather is based on victims account is the incident and her own words as a matter of fact.
go on YouTube and listen to it for yourself
I fail to see how you are pro gun. Do you support NY converting to a will issue state? Firearms cannot be used for self defense outside of the home if you are not allowed to take them with you when you leave your home. Or are you just pro gun in
Do you recognize the existence of unalienable rights and is self defense not one of those rights?
The assumption that her carrying a gun would have prevented anything is laughable. Your thought that a gun on her would have guaranteed her not getting raped. Your thought process, not the incident, is laughable.
I thinks states should go to whatever laws lower gun violence. The facts show that the harder it is to get a gun, the safer the populace is. Short of an all out ban. I think any law abiding, mentally healthy adult
should be able to purchase and carry a handgun, hunting rifle or shotgun. I never see a need to own a .50 cal. Never. IMO
I don't see self defense by means of carrying any weapon as an unalienable right, no.
In NY Firearms may be used for self defense outside the home.
Looks like yet ANOTHER school shooting today. In a shall issue state. Yup.
New yorkers cannot take their firearms outside their property for reasons of self defense, so how does that works exactly?
And again - not an assumption. These are the words of the victim herself - an experienced ccw holder. You know better than she regarding the likelihood that a firearm in her possession would have prevented this? A little presumptuous, no? lol
Trained police officers have had their guns taken from them. People trained to prevent that exact thing.Unfortunately it happens. To say that she would have been able to prevent it guaranteed is presumptuous.
Im not saying it would of or wouldnt of. Neither is an "undeniable" fact. Either is possible.
New Yorkers CAN obtain a concealed carry license. You do know this, don't you? I mean, you've been speaking like you KNOW but in reality you don't. I can't say I'm surprised.
The process is a joke in NYC. You have ZERO chance of being approved unless you are politically connected. You do know this, don't you?
Are you saying the approvals outside the city are likely to go through?
LMMFAO! You were talking about NYC (no you werent) all along! That's funny! I thought we were discussing state (we were) laws. Theres a difference between New York and New York City.
Both links provided discussed state laws. The whole conversation was about state laws. Why try to change the discussion now when you're getting your head bashed in? Wait, I just answered my own question.
Approvals outside of NYC go through a lot easier than in NYC. But, you already knew all of this, didn't you? Maybe not. Sorry. Let me know if you have any questions. I'm here to help.
Sorry I dropped off. Things got crazy at work.
So no I'm not talking about the city although it is the epitome of what is wrong with NY gun laws.
You are misrepresenting the state law. You cannot get one unless you prove you have a special need for one. How many people so you know that have one? Zero is my bet.
This policy becomes a tool for govt to deny licenses because of their political agendas.
Look at the total number of licenses issued by the state and tell me that's not true.
So it seems, since you believe that any law abiding mentally healthy adult should be able to purchase and carry a firearm, that you must find NY law to be unreasonable and oppressive. The very definition of a will-issue state is exactly what you have
described as your belief. So why are you defending oppressive laws in no-issue/may-issue states?
President Not Sure
@ almost 3 years ago
Plantation Palms Blvd, Land O Lakes, FL 34639
I love to see expansion of recognized rights like that. I say recognized because it is not a right that govt grants.
NY has no constitutional recognition of the right to keep and bear arms. Neither does NJ not surprisingly the two states on the bottom of the list.
yeah that made me homesick
Plantation Palms, Land O' Lakes, FL 34639
You're totally off on carry permits in NY. I know MANY who have it. You're being led by bad info. It's not easy to get a gun or a concealed carry license. Nor should it be. IMO.
How do you know if they're law abiding and mentally healthy if you adamantly oppose background checks? How is it that NY is much safer than most states when it comes to gun violence?
By your thinking NY should lead the nation in gun violence. NYC should be the least safe big city in the country instead of the safest big city like it is. Maybe your "more guns=less crime" rhetoric is wrong.
Unless you discount statistics and judge on what "they" say and on emotional thinking.
When NYC was having serious crime problems, 80s and early 90s, the gun laws weren't less strict than now.
Actually they were less strict than now. Add that since the 90s, the laws have been enforced a lot better. Also keep in mind that most guns used in NY crimes originate from other states.
so criminals can get weapons in NYC, but not normal citizens?
kind of proves the point, doesn't it, ban/restrict firearms only the bad have them.
@ almost 3 years ago
Fort Belvoir, VA, USA
We're discussing State laws. I think NYCs gun restrictions are too tough. We agree there. The issue is State law, which I personally agree with.
BUT that being said, NYC with it's tough gun restrictions is still the safest large city in America.
So it actually disproves your point.
nope, it can be safe(ish), and only the bad have firearms & use the.
the ban on hatchets coming next?
What can be "safe(ish)"?
gun crimes vs non gun committed crimes.
guns used by criminals vs citizens in self defense
Spotsylvania, VA 22553, USA
if i were to own a gun, it would be 4 times more likely to shoot someone i love and not someone who is trying to harm me.
but that's handguns, there is no real danger from assault rifles, those are kept by looneytoons that just really like to look at them on the wall and shoot targets with the rest of their aryan nations buddies.
thats oversimplifying, but i find plcs position to be odd, backround checks don't prevent lunatics and criminals from obtaining the guns, they can easily just get someone to get it for them.
maybe arlington and h20 are nuts and theyre going to end up shooting a black kid in a dark alley one day but i fail to see where gun control reduces the ability for "bad guys" to get guns.
you point to new York, but a lot of things happened in new York at the same time, the whole city changed at the same time, maybe the drug dealing stopping reduced your gun crime, maybe cleaning up time square did it.
The SAFE law I think turned a lot of upstaters off because of how it got rushed through so quickly.
maybe gun laws did not do as much as you think if the whole culture changed at the same time as other things. if this were true Chicago and dc would also go down.
i definitely do not believe that gun laws increase crime, thats the position of a madman. when racer says stuff like that he doesn't realize that gun laws came because of the crime, not the other way around.
i think both sides are wrong on this.
I have two assault rifles. Not so looney tunes. What's the problem with those? Believe me, if they became the weapon of choice, you'd be happy you had one.
We keep those for the same reason we keep MREs, sutures, water, etc. etc. stockpiled: in case we need it. I think you're crazy NOT to be prepared.
sorry, if you think its crazy to not be prepared for a zombie invasion or nuclear holocaust then you are a looney toon.
Nope, I keep my rifles & handguns to protect my family & property, mainly from thieves & looneytoons. (mainly Aryans & illegals).
Unlike you, Adam, I actually know how to use them safely, & select proper targets.
I've taught my family the same.
Keeping a bit of stockpile of supplies for a natural disaster ( tornado, hurricane, blizzard, etc) isn't really ignorant, just prepared.
If being prepared to protect your family & property makes a person looney, than I'm proud to be a bit crazy.
There is no need for you to be ready for the highly unlikely civil war. There are agencies that are tasked with protecting you and your family. The paranoia of "I needs my ARs!" only makes matters worse. Relax!
For the sake of clarity, my position is as stated above - that gun laws, whether strict or loose, carry much less weight than other factors in determining violent crime rates, just like @wv is suggesting.
Plc I don't recall saying I am against background checks. I submit to one every time I buy a firearm and when I got my ccw too. They have very limited utility because they will not prevent criminals from getting and carrying firearms. When they are
implemented properly they are fine however I am extremely wary of such checks since they can be used as an easy avenue for politicians to deter and even deny good citizens from purchasing and carrying firearms. ESPECIALLY when there is some arbitrary
opinion to be rendered as the final call as appears to be the case in NY ccws. County apparently matters a lot since there is a county judge making the final call. Does that sound right? There should be a set of guidelines which the law requires
issuing authorities to follow. Aka will-issue. You realize you said every law abiding mentally healthy citizen should be permitted to carry, and now you are praising the fact that it is difficult to purchase and carry legally. Which is it?
I am much more familiar with NJ and the state there is guilty of both. The tyrants ruling the state of NJ routinely use the law to both deter and deny good citizens their self defense rights. NO ONE gets a carry permit in NJ. No one unless you are
politically connected of course. The supreme Court of the state makes the call for every ccw application. On the deterrent side, the process of obtaining your fid card which is required to buy firearms and ammo is intentionally long, expensive, and
I agree "that gun laws, whether strict or loose, carry much less weight than other factors in determining violent crime rates" But it appears to carry more weight when we are talking about gun violence.
So are you for or against background checks? Your posts indicate you're against. Submitting to a mandatory check doesn't mean you support them.
NY isn't, and IMO shouldn't become, a shall issue state. It's a may issue state. County judges make decisions that impact peoples lives and rights daily. Why not here?
Every law abiding mentally healthy citizen should be permitted to carry AND it shouldn't be an easy process. Both. Show yourself to be a law abiding, mentally capable, responsible adult and you should be approved.
I don't know anything about the NJ process so I wont comment either way. Except to say I hope it's similar to NY. LOL
Did I mention"civil war"?.
But being honest, those "agencies" would be stretched and prioritized. Your family isn't going to be near the top of that list.
just look at "Ferguson" businesses.
All citizens will be at the top of the list. What's going on in Ferguson? Rioters? Nothin new. No reason to stack an arms room in the house. The authorities are containing the situation and the citizens are safe at home.
businesses burned, looted, people assaulted..
did you miss the riots & protests.
you're naive if you truly believe a couple hundred cops can safeguard your family & 10000 others at the same time.
Businesses in the area of the rioting. People stupid enough to be in the rioting area. It's isolated and contained. A couple of hundred cops with a couple of thousand troops can safeguard a pretty large area.
For me, the concern would bee more about trust than ability. Knowing human nature, I would be concerned that the "authorities" would have my best interests in mind.
@ almost 3 years ago
Northwest Torrance, Torrance, CA
Not that I necessarily believe that maintaining a stock of guns would really protect me in such a situation. Not for very long, anyway.
Guns attract attention, pretty soon your house would be swarmed. Better to use a crossbow or katana
But a shotgun with about 500 rounds would make sense to keep in the safe
So when the mindless drones come to tear apart everything you hold dear, you'll stand a chance of beating them back
How would you go about figuring out who is "mentally capable" and "responsible", PLC?
by their gender and skin color?
Not good criteria, pink.
New York, NY 10006, United States
For him, they're perfect. after all, he had been found incapable and irresponsible.
Southwood Riviera, Torrance, CA 90505
I want the hidden turret gun Edna Mode had in "The Incredibles".
I am not for background checks but I am not against properly implemented ones that are not set up in an obstructionist manner. I don't know how else to explain it plc. Their purpose should be to prevent sales to known criminals.
people need to be realistic about the expectations. Removing the simplest way to obtain a firearm does nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining them. It simply changes the how.
NY and NJ have obstructionist systems in place designed to discourage legal ownership and carrying of firearms. That is flat out wrong and qualifies as oppression.
In PA you show a license, they do an instant background check, and your leave with you firearm, including pistols.
Want to carry? A 20 dollar fee and slightly lengthier check that the law requires to be completed in no more than 45 days. Mine took 14 days.
And for a judge to have arbitrary decision power over your liberty is grossly offensive and flat out wrong. It opens the door to playing politics and favoritism as I already explained.
Judges make decisions that impact people rights when they've committed crimes against other or in dispute resolutions. They should NOT be making decisions on your rights outside of those cases. Not about basic liberties. The fact that you believe
that to be just is sad.
You are funny.
From "County judges make decisions that impact peoples lives and rights daily." to "And for a judge to have arbitrary decision power over your liberty is grossly offensive and flat out wrong." ####ing olympic leap!
I wish we could have a reasonable discussion. Blatantly misrepresenting what I say only hurts the conversation. Judges don't only make life altering decisions when a crime is involved. (see family court)
Personally I don't think you're wrong. I think we differ in opinions. That's it. I respect your opinion. I hope what you desire never comes to NY. I like it the way it is. You apparently like PA. That's fine.
I like extensive background checks to purchase. However long it takes. 15 minute stop and shop for guns is a horrible way to sell guns. IMO. Why not a waiting period in which time checks can be conducted?
everyone who buys a gun believes they are safe and use proper storage h20, every single person. there is not a single person walking out of a gun store who says "im going to leave this on my desk when my kids are playing
but it always happens, because people make mistakes, it is in those mistakes that kids shoot themselves in the head, and that is why the statistics are the way they are, because accidental shootings always happen more
than someone pretending like hes the last line of defense for his family because he heard his cat scream in the middle of the night.
im sure you made at least one mistake in storage and safety since you got yours, and I don't care if you say you didn't, because you cannot be trusted, when it happens you don't even acknowledge you did it.
the moment passed, "nothing happened, it wont happen again" is probably what you told yourself, but in every one of those instances, all over america something does happen, and it does happen again.
nobody is 100%, 100% of the time, it is impossible and that's when the bad things happen.
I don't hide my guns from my kids. They know where they are, and are trained in their use.
Gun accident statistics.
Adam, you're wacky, I've owned guns for thirty years and never did anything thing stupid with them.
@wv how many times have you dropped your baby? How many times have you misstepped while standing in the edge of a precipice? Proper handling of firearms falls into that category. Any one who doesn't treat it as such should reconsider ownership.
@plc I mentioned dispute resolution which covers family court. You are missing the point.
Suppression of rights its oppressive. Period. You don't feel that way (because you lean towards statism hehe) but many in your state do.
You are delusional about both the states desire and ability to protect citizens, especially in emergency situations.
Who's rights are oppressed?
Delusional about the Governments desire and ability to protect citizens? That's the ruby ridge mentality that makes me laugh. Very paranoid for a person living under the security you doubt. I suggest you travel.
40,000,000 households in the US own a gun. In a given year there will be 20,000 suicides+fatal accidents involving a gun. A .05% chance.
If you remove suicides and look at fatal accidents (~500 yearly). The chance each year is .00125%
It is essentially the same chance as being struck by lightning
Gang violence is a horrible thing. I was referring to the topic of having a gun in the house.
The chances of a serious accident happening are minute.
More dangerous to ride in a car?
The need for a gun should be weighed by the individual. It seems the overwhelming majority who have decided to own one are responsible
Additionally the accident/fatality stats don't take into consideration the number of homes that have acquired guns illegally. HINT: There are a LOT of them
North Royalton, OH 44133, USA
A lot of illegal guns is correct. And the are easy to get.
A NJ busy felt threatened in the aftermath of sandy given the environment, breakins, etc. He wanted to be able to protect his family and decided the rusj was worth it so he purchased anv illegal 9mm. It took 1.5 days to get for a normally law abiding
citizen without criminal connections.
At the same time he applied for his fid and a pistol purchase permit. That process took about 4 months even though NJ law requires govt to complete it within 30 days. (aka obstructionist)
When his paperwork finally came through he bought a legal 9mm and ditched the illegal one. Easy to get.
#busy = buddy
plc's link: Source: Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence
An objective source that would never manipulate data I'm sure.
Attacking the source is so passé. Try to discredit it. With facts.
You won't point out that he didn't need the gun during the 4 months. But I will.
Illegal guns don't start off as illegal. They start off as legal. Purchased in lax gun law states. Then sold or stolen. Where they end up on NY streets. Great job.
No gun (unless 3d printed) starts off as illegal
and how many times did you have to use your firearm to protect your family john?
and how many times did you have to use your firearm to protect your family racer?
and arlington you are missing the whole point of everything. i want to think you are being intentionally obtuse but that isn't the case. you didn't even think of accidental shootings when thinking about "no gun zones".
every time i handled my son there was a chance to drop him, lucky i never did, but the chance was always there this is how these kinds of statistics are created. not owning a gun is like never handling him.
they aren't some abstract function of math like ami does. the #### happens every day.
racer your graph is completely misleading. im comparing accidental gun deaths without suicides in comparisons to using that same gun protecting your family, not relating it to other accidents in the house.
that link of yours does not change the fact. it distorts the reality of the statistics by comparing it to other completely unrelated things.
if i wanted to be unfair i would add suicides, but i remove those numbers from gun control advocated. do you know why saturday night specials are banned?
@PLC - the link you posted detailing gun deaths is an argument FOR gun ownership. Not against.
Bethlehem, GA, USA
That article doesn't differentiate between accidental and intentional shootings.
Accidents are quite rare.
Intentional shootings are much more common.
That's why citizens need to defend themselves.
The article also doesn't differentiate between child (under 13) and minor (under 18).
Big difference between an 6 year old accidentally shooting himself, and a 17 year old gang member being shot in the street by a rival gang.
Bethlehem, GA 30620, USA
The incidences of citizens using guns to protect themselves it's far more frequent than the incidences of accidental shootings.
Monroe, GA, USA
The most common type of gun death is intentional.
Second is also intentional.
Accidental shootings are relatively rare.
The facts don't support your attempts to remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens.
The link I posted is neither FOR nor AGAINST gun ownership. It merely gives some facts and actually mentions gun control measures to curb the problem. Hardly FOR gun ownership.
I think the word "unintended" used in the article several times means unintended.
I have made no attempt to remove any gun from anyones hand. Sorry for the fail. Maybe you can respond with a gay comment now. Just to keep with tradition.
unintended.. when gang banger shoots up the Street & kills 4 on kids in a playground
I have used my firearm once thanks for asking. Didn't draw it but just putting my hand on it completely defused the situation. The assh0le went from pounding his wife's face in to passively waiting for the police to arrive.
There were at least 10 people standing around doing nothing to help the woman... just watching. They were probably waiting for the police. When seconds count, the police arrive in minutes.
It's interesting how difficult it is to be reasonable around this topic.
Cerritos, CA 90703, USA
Yes I agree undrwater. Gun control advocates are both unreasonable and illogical! ;)
i cant even tell if anyone is talking to me.
your position has been summarily dismissed.
You're attempting to make an emotional plea for gun control on the basis of the tub accidents that kill innocent children.
It's been proven that actual accidental shooting deaths are extremely rare. About 500 per year.
That's beyond miniscule.
Your position has no support.
Either come up with a better argument, or continue to sit at the little table.
Reasonable gun control measures work. As proven in states and countries that use them. More guns equals more violence. As any reasonable person would expect. The extremes on this issue don't understand logic.
or reason. Which is the norm for these hot topics.
you have real issues racer.
Martinsburg, WV 25401, USA
I agree with your last points PLC. Evidence has shown both an increase AND a decrease in violence. I'm betting there's some non-intuitive way to see why both could be correct, then design some policy to address it.