Gun Ownership
I just saw an article that was about people taking the Las Vegas shooting as an excuse for enforcing more control on the ownership of weapons.
It has always surprised me why people in the US are so enthusiastic about guns, guns are no big deal, and I can assure you they won’t be getting you out of trouble. Now I know you base the right to bear arms because of some amendment to your constitution, but these were muskets this amendment was talking about, so how do you make it include all types of modern weapons?
Now I am not against anyone having guns, like George Carlin said you can do whatever you want to do even shoot someone it doesn’t bother me. What really intrigues me is this obsession with owing a weapon, and I’ll tell you something, in reality the only people who should own weapons are those who are most of all mentally fit, and then are also knowledgeable in the handling of weapons.
For example a soldier who has been to war and is not quite right in the head shouldn’t be allowed to have a weapon, on the other hand a soldier who is fit mentally is in fact one of the people who should by all means be allowed to own a weapon because he knows how to use them. If this soldier has turned into a criminal well that’s bad luck but at least he can use a weapon.
Now in my country to own a weapon you have to by it at a store that is owned by the military, you have to show a lot of papers and only get the weapon if you are approved. On the other hand we have probably millions of weapons all around the country so anyone who really wants a weapon can get one and carry it, if a policeman asks for a permit you just bribe him and that’s it.
So we have an incredibly high murder rate, but I believe the US’ rate would be higher than ours if it wasn’t for the fact that you have over 2 million prisoners a lot of whom are there paying for nothing, but among these there certainly are some very dangerous criminals who if they were out in the streets would of course make the murder rate soar, because getting a weapon in the US is easy, even a criminal can buy one, legally or illegally.
Now I would like to ask all of you gung ho possible gun owners, do you really believe that if an armed person walks up to you and you are carrying a weapon you would have the guts to try and take it out? I bet you most of you don’t and these guy will rob you of everything you have on you, including your gun.
You see your life is on the line at that moment and all of a sudden you will find that you aren’t as brave as carrying a weapon made you think you were. I have seen several people packing heat killed by someone who just walked up to them and shot them dead.
So overall I think you want a gun, prove you are mentally fit, prove that you know how to use it, and keep it in a safe place because here we have had a lot of kids kill themselves or a friend because they found a gun readily available and thought it was a toy.
Now I know many of you use hunting as an excuse for owning a weapon, but for hunting all you need is a rifle or a shotgun, no need for a semi automatic weapon.
When criminals fear being shot the crime goes down. Just look at Chicago with the highest gun control and most shootings. The Government and Criminals need to be concerned or they will take advantage of you.
Wait what do you mean? The Government and Criminals need to be concerned, or they will take advantage of you.
As for Chicago, I think you are looking at things in a wrong way, cities are attractive to criminals, lots of people, you can hide easily, urban areas always have higher crime rates, the state with the highest murder rate is Louisiana, and they have real lax gun laws. In that respect I don't think it's the laws that matter, it's the fact that you have more criminals in certain states.
If criminals think there is a good chance of getting shot breaking in your home they will be more cautious about doing it.
You think so? Criminals are criminals, guns won't scare off a really determined one. And remember something, criminals know that if they shoot they have to shoot to kill, an honest citizen will probably think about it, that moments thought could be decisive in the outcome.
that was hilarious.
you should have used the 'humor' tag.
No, I frankly don't know why you guys make such a big deal about owning a weapon, I really believe you should only allow people who know how to use them to own one, and I mean use them against a person, because that is the idea that is being sold, that you need weapons to defend yourselves. Or is the big fight over weapons just to have them locked in a drawer and then talk about the gun you have?
It's kind of amazing what some people believe isn't it?
Do you own a weapon? I guess you do, but you were a soldier, do you agree any person should own a weapon regardless if he's a nutcase, an idiot who will get nervous and shoot anyone, or someone who can't use the thing and will probably shoot himself?
yup
I see you are from honduras, the whole culture of the natives of your country was decimated by people who had guns (the spanish).
you can choose to not have a gun if you feel mentally unfit, or like you would be to scared to use it anyway, or if it makes you feel brave to roll the dice and hope you are never the focal point of a violent or angry person that intends to harm you, but when you project that onto other people, it's just gross. Gross post dude.
honduras got it's independence because of guns too.
No, Central America just proclaimed there freedom from Spain there was no war of independence.
No, actually the people who were decimated were the natives of your country, millions of them. We didn't have that kind of genocide here. And they were decimated because the English and later your countrymen had guns.
See when the Spaniards did get here there wasn't much of an indigenous population here, and the ones that were here weren't killed, the Spaniards had more use for them as labor, and they mostly adapted to the new way of things which is why we have so many mestizos, a mixture of Indian and European, we also have mulatos black and European, and then we have zambos these guys are a mix of everything, indian, spanish, english, black even chinese. We have a very small number of real indians, that is what we call them Indios, just about 7 tribes with no big numbers of people, they actually nearly disappearde completely but not because they were killed off.
Now in Mexico and Guatemala this mixture happened but to a lesser degree, if you go there you will find that Indians comprise a very large part of their population. And yes I believe there was genocide in Mexico but not as big as what happened in the US.
Using the same rational thinking that a few gun deaths over americian history justifies the banning of certain weapons, I perpose that governments over the entire course of human existance have proven to be untrustworthy, and thus justify weapons of any kind to prevent the over reach of a tyrannical government.
Lets keep this easy. If you think the government cares about you, your well being, or your wealth, you're grossly mistaken. Stalin killed 30 million of his own people. The KKK was once endorced by many political officials because of its influence on elections. The great depression was basically caused by inside trading. Peral habor was let to happen to rally support to join the war. Even these days, Edward Snowden blows the whistle on America for illegally spying on U.S. citizens, doing god knows what with the information. Lets put the cherry on top too. We have the largest heroin/opiate epidemic blow up we ever seen in the U.S. imported from Afghanistan, protected by the CIA, to pass the buck to the tax payer. You REALLY think the government cares about you? No. They dont. You are nothing, and can thrown away without a care.
This is why ALL Americians should be armed and dangerous, to discourage acts of indecency from the government. Sometimes, people will kill eachother, and my heart goes out to those who lose others, but the number of dead pales in the face of the impending capabilities of a government.
OK, I see what you are saying, but show me one instance, just one, where the fact that people had weapons stopped the government from doing something.
And remember I already said I don't mind if you have a weapon I don't care, what I'm, saying is if you have a weapon you better be sure you know how to use it, and how to use it responsibly. remember you have to be ready to kill someone, do you have it in you to do it? I know some might most won't.
The point is to not have to use them. But if you really want an example.. heres one with the French revolution.
The revolution couldnt begin until they at least had some weapons. The tyrannical/irresponsible behavior of the government had driven the population into starvation. A loaf of bread costing at some time around 2 weeks to a months wages. The people forced thier way into the bastion and got all the weapons they needed to get to be taken seriously. So fustrated, they destroyed the entire building by hand, pulling it apart stone by stone. The french people overcame a tyranical government not by diplomancy, but by getting weapons, and killing a lot of people until they got the change they needed.
Also, the gutts to use a weapon does not justify it. The people who are afraid of thier weapons did not train on them properly. In the same way you would be scared to ride a horse if you had never done it. When you become comfortable with your weapon, you will be better suited to a stressful situation.
Also, the gutts to use a weapon does not justify it. The people who are afraid of thier weapons did not train on them properly. In the same way you would be scared to ride a horse if you had never done it. When you become comfortable with your weapon, you will be better suited to a stressful situation.
Now..
Could this government had been capable of such terrible behavior against thier own people had the people all had thier own gun?.... no.
Have you really read about the French revolution, I think that is one case that shows people shouldn't have weapons, an easily aroused population with arms will cause havoc and that is what the French people did, murder a lot of people.
Depriving people of weapons goes much further back than guns though. How about the samurai class keeping the common folk... common. Kings keeping weapons away from peasants, etc... these practices are just not new, or revolutionary. That is why it is important to recognize the importance of an armed population.
The samurais were no more than soldiers, kings had armies, so what I said about dismantling the military is actually just what should be done. Of course it will be very difficult, you would need a huge revolution, world wide, I don't think we are ready for that anywhere, but that should be the solution. And then we wold have what you said about the French revolution "And yes.. the french revolution did work, they were able to dethrone the king sucessfully. If they implicated a terrible replacment of government after that, is irrelevant". So you see in the end nothing really changes, with or without guns.
So what you're saying is that the government has the right to opress you because you do not have the right to defend yourself. The french were starving, and in an absolute desperate need of change. If violence wasnt needed, the upper class would have done something to quell the situation. But they didnt, hence why it got bloody. In a way, yes I agree that it got WAY more bloody then it had to be, but, thats the price that france had to pay in order to correct itself.
The thing is, it didn't correct itself, in fact that was the reason Napoleon came to power and he even became emperor so they went from bad to worse. I do find it funny when you say that I am in favor of government, look if the people who are in the military just stopped being soldiers the power of the government would suddenly be irrelevant, so you should actually try to downsize the army or abolish it completely, that should be done in all countries and a lot of problems would be solved, among them powerful governments.
While idiologically you are correct, realistically, thats not possible. And yes.. the french revolution did work, they were able to dethrone the king sucessfully. If they implicated a terrible replacment of government after that, is irrelevant. They successfully threw out the source of thier poverty. But yes, unfortunately they didnt replace it with a walmart and a congress.
@royrodgers has voted on behalf of @minnowpond. If you would like to recieve upvotes from minnowponds team on all your posts, simply FOLLOW @minnowpond.