Ok so murder is irrelevant in your discussion. What you want to do is try and draw some equivalency between the combined murder and suicide rates to make it look like you actually have a point. Which you don't.
Good question, since you're not concerned about murder, you only care when death happens with a certain item.
Look, it is painfully obvious that you are starting with a desired goal in mind, and that goal is more useless gun laws and the infringement of our rights. Your arguments are painfully uninformed and lack basic reasoning. You come here and demand answers to solving gun violence, and when you get solid answers you waffle about the cost of implementing such. On the other hand, you magically don't seem to care about the price tag when it comes to forcing mandatory training schools, unenforceable UBC and other other programs that do NOTHING and cost billions to implement. Then you come here talking about "gun crime" as if passing useless, expensive laws will do anything to stop murder or suicide. You don't care about murder, you don't care about crime, you don't care about suicide....you only care that people have guns. You don't like that people have guns and you want to build a case to get them banned. We are not fooled by your unimaginative and quite frankly unintelligent arguments.
So you are now claiming that if someone is presenting a risk to your safety and well being, a private individual should be legally prohibited from protecting themselves, until government gives them permission to actually do such?
Answer the question as it was presented to you. Are you now claiming that if someone is presenting a risk to your safety and well being, a private individual should be legally prohibited from protecting themselves against said risk, until government gives them permission to actually do such? Should private individuals be legally required to get government permission to protect their lives?
I tell you why, it's because the criminals have too much power and the law abiding citizens don't have the power to resist. And that's why law abiding citizens should be armed.
Yes if they are mentally unsound they should not have a gun. By the way if a doctor agrees they can also be held against their will without a warrant - - - Updated - - - Yes they should be. they should also prove they are law abiding, sane and well trained. We do not operate on the honor system
Actually we do. Take for example the 1st amendment. We're you required to take English in order to post on this thread? Were you vetted by the forum to make sure you won't incite violence? And before you say "you can kill people with guns" the pen is mightier than the sword. One person with the wrong idea can kill millions.
Elaborate on exactly how many "a few more" amounts to. Is it three? Is it five? Is it one hundred? Is it ten thousand? How many will be proposed when "a few more" restrictions on firearms are enacted, but have no measurable impact on what supposedly needs to be controlled?
Said like a true gun banner. For gun banners, there is one solution to solve both murder and suicide. Ban the gun. For second amendment supporters, we recognize these are separate issues with different solutions.
I do not support banning guns. I do support proving that you are law abiding, sane and well trained prior to owning one
Personally I would not restrict them as much as tax them You want a gun - fine - pay for the privilege You do not want to register that gun - then pay a higher rate and that would cover all your guns BUT, like here, if your gun is involved in a criminal activity then you have to prove that it was stolen or taken without your knowledge
