Gun deaths in 2016

Let's get one thing understood here - I'm not advocating anti gun legislation; if anything I'm for the possession of firearms not least because a responsible carrier could prevent or terminate an armed robbery or a dire mass hostage situation. Anti-gun legislation would obviously give the advantage to the crims over the law-abiding to carry out their crimes with zero fear of retaliation. All I've been saying is there's no way to put this particular genie back into the bottle other than to forcibly remove all guns: but if I've learnt anything from this thread is that the law-abiding 'rednecks' are more in love with their guns than the bloody criminals are, therefore gun crime can only continue unabated? All we can do is hope young Jimmy who lives down the road doesn't get cut down in any cross-fire??

 

Yeah, laugh-a-minute here isn't it!

 

I'd wish to believe that trained officers are more able to handle volatile situations rather than yer average Joe?

Quite so, and by now you'll probably have read my definitive standpoint (post 201) above, which concurs with that.

 

Nonsense … nothing is about this well documented! Fact is that this point is only used to back the right of own gun to have some sort of argument … not more!

Nonsense and it shows the total disaster of arguing of the pro gunner very well. They simply want to tell people that it is impossible to prevent criminals to get guns and even if someone tries to do so, these criminal will start to rob guns etc. So in conclusion it is better not to touch and to allow people to have an own gun for self-protection.

What a mess of nonsense at least … because simply question: Why does this work in all other democratic countries then and has not the bad result you claim will be?

Sure … you can never prevent totally illegal gun market but you can fight this illegal gun market and so to make it difficult for all criminal to get a gun, simply because this will raise the price for them much!
Sure, could happen that criminals make then robbery to get legal arms of people etc., but hell … yu have a legal gun, so shot such a person a 3rd eye in the face and end of story … and don’t even dream about to argue about this, because then it will open the … for you … bad question why you want and need to have an own gun for self-protection at all if you are not able to defend against criminals with no guns then?

It is in core the same BS of nonsense which reasons you to have an own gun for self-protection!

Who demanded that teachers have to wear guns in calls rooms of schools to defend their students against any school massacres? What BS is this please? Why not directly teach 6 year old kids to use a gun and they can defend their own?

Instead preventing the possibility that such massacres can happen, these prefer to up arm … total BS and Amen!

 

You are entitled to your fallacious opinion of me just as I am entitled to my opinion that federal prosecutors are just political flunkies appointed to cover up the crimes and corruption of the politicians that appoint them.

 

Thank you for confirming that you have no clue whatsoever as to how difficult it would be shoot anyone "in the face" let alone someone who was moving.

 

A total and not to be topped ridiculous answer ... and you know why?

Until 1936 it was all Jews allowed to have own guns ... since 1936 only they need a gun license and only since 1938 they were forbidden to have!
Hitler raised power when again? 1933!

So what was again your argument with my country please? Ehm ... best argument that gun control has nothing to do with history of my country!

 

Wow ... and 25 yards outside the base not! Well argument!

Again:

An 18 year old person is allowed all cars, trucks and heavier, because rated to be smart enough to handle in all traffic situations!
An 18 year old person is allowed to buy legally an arsenal of guns, because rated to be smart enough to handle guns always god and correct!
An 18 year old person is allowed to serve as soldier in US Forces, because rated to be old and smart enough to do this job even in war!

BUT the same 18 year old person is rated to be a dumbass only to handle this so dangerous thing called alcohol proper and so not allowed to drink in bars or to buy in shops!

Very smart thinking and reasoning I must say!

 

I will not deny that the Justice is not working proper and it must be improved of course! I do not deny that the Politics is responsible for laws and the judicial is responsible to follow the law and the police etc. has to make law to be a real law!
To have laws is one thing, but to use them is the more important thing. So they should start to use the law existing proper of course!

How could it be that the mentally ill person of Florida issue was able to have a gun, take it with him in luggage in a plane, to open the luggage and to start to shot around?

Which laws did not work because not followed by police and justice. Which laws must be improved to prevent this in future?

Past history? You mean Nazi Germany?
Ridiculous argument!
Hitler raised power in 1933 as all know! Until 1936 it was all Jews allowed to have own guns and only since 1936 they were forced to have a license! Only since 1938 they were forbidden to have guns!
So what was prevented with this much more liberal gun law in Nazi Germany which allowed Jews to be armed at least? Nothing!

Current situation?
No need for guns … but of course I know your intention behind it which can be focused on 1 word: Refugees!
Nonsense! Sure … there happen crimes of refugees of course, but only little! Sure, Berlin attack was a terror act done by a Syrian refugee … as were 2 cases of others which happened. But so what? About 20 cases were prevented and here 95% were planned by people living in 2nd and 3rd generation in Germany and who become “victim” of hate preaching rat pipers … as there are same sort of some Germans becoming victim of Nazi Rat pipers too!

Do you know the composition of the refugees here in Germany?
About 40% are Christians … and so for sure no sort of any Islamic terrorist threat at all!
About 40% are Alevi and Shiite or lesser minority Muslims and so impossible to be any sort of ISIS, because ISIS = only Sunni who rate all other sort of Muslim to be worthless scum!

So 80% are in core for sure very dangerous terrorists!

 

Possibly, and even hopefully true. Sometimes, though, all we have to handle the volatile situation right now is the average Joe.

 

Regarding the mental illness aspect: according the current law, there are two very well defined circumstances that make someone a prohibited person with regards to gun purchase and ownership. They must either have been adjudicated mentally defective by a competent authority or must have been committed to a mental institution. Neither of these conditions had been met. Apparently the 4 day stay in a facility was for observation only and didn't meet the legal defintion for commitment. The authorities had no legal standing to confiscate his firearm.

Previously, the shooter had been involved in domestic violence actions authorities gains his girlfriend, and under the rules set by the Lautenberg Amendment, if he had been prosecuted and convicted he would have lost his right to gun ownership. As happens, the charges were either dropped or reduced and this prohibited status was avoided.

Checking firearms and ammo for airline travel is quite common in the US, and isn't unlikely that it's happening for most of the flights in the US, especially those originating or ending in the West and Alaska during the fall.

 

They shoot the dogs.
How are you prepared to defend yourself?

- - - Updated - - -

^^^
Nonsensical, unsupportable hyperbole.

 

We have a right to own and use a gun; we need not justify doing so to anyone.

 

you are confusing the political appointees with the career DOJ employees (which I was) but your NRA hate sort of destroys any of your arguments about guns.

 

The Florida airport shooter was a terrorist and an ISIS fan-boy.

He was successful because, just like with the Orlando terrorist, the San Bernardino terrorists, the Ft. Hood terrorist.....the FBI is not allowed to "profile" based on religion. They were successful because of the current president's politically correct environment.

ALL of these terrorists were known to the FBI, some for years, and they were still able to carry out their attacks.

No law is going to stop that. How many attacks have been waged in France, Belgium, Germany and the rest of Europe that your laws could not prevent?

My point on German history is that there have been times where not being able to defend yourselves individually led to disaster. If a major event happens in any country, there will not be enough police to protect everyone and that is a fact. This is crystal clear all through history.

As far as the "refugees", I hope for your sake that I am wrong.

 

Which one of us owns guns and has used them in target practice of both moving and non moving targets? Is it the anti-gun liberal with fanciful scenarios who's never touched a gun, never fired a gun, who doesn't understand the first thing about targeting and who waits for armed security to save him? Or is it the republican daughter of a retired military officer who grew up around guns and is well aware of her targeting capabilities?

 

You forgot to drop the mic at the end.

 

Heh, thanks.
I might still need it. I have a lot to say in other threads. I'm about to get hit with a lot of translation work and so I want to have fun while I can. Yes, political forum posting is fun for me.

 

Indeed they are not. Police officer training in the handling of volatile situations is to engage in greater levels of violence than the suspect or suspects themselves. This has been documented with video evidence numerous times.

Noted.

 

You are now claiming that there is simply no evidence to prove that those who are using firearms for the legitimate purpose of self defense, are not actually protecting themselves and their families from harm? Is this the argumentative position that you are establishing for yourself?

Then demonstrate precisely how it is nonsense, and does not accurately reflect the current situation in the united states. Demonstrate that criminals who are released from prison, back into society where there are between three hundred and five hundred million firearms in current circulation, cannot easily acquire one if they so desire. Demonstrate that any acquisition of a firearm by a convicted felon, or other prohibited individual, is a rare exception that requires an investment of a significant amount of time and effort to accomplish.

First and foremost, the united states does not actually enforce the majority of its firearm-related legislation against those that knowingly violate them. According to the available evidence, only one out of every fifty offenders is actually prosecuted with a firearm-related offense. This does not even say how many are actually prosecuted successfully.

http://content.thirdway.org/publica...nforcement_Gap_-_Federal_Gun_Laws_Ignored.pdf

Second, no other nation in the world, absolutely none of them, have anywhere near the number of firearms to contend with as the united states. Current estimates put the number in private circulation between three hundred and five hundred million. That is currently owned. Analyzing the number of background checks performed monthly, and assuming ninety percent resulted in a firearm being sold, approximately forty one thousand more firearms are being added to that number on a daily basis. That is a rate of nearly two thousand firearms being sold every single hour. Almost none of them are registered in any manner that would make it possible to find them, and trace them back to a current owner. Those that were sold twenty years ago no longer even have point of sale records with the federally licensed firearms dealer, because sales records are destroyed after twenty years.

Point out one other country anywhere in the world, that has had to contend with the above, and has still successfully eliminated a significant number of firearms, and successfully licensed and registered what was left.

In a country where there are more firearms than people, nearly every last one of them unregistered and untraceable?

Again, atrocious grammatical structure, rendering the above mostly incoherent. Precisely what are you trying to say?

Matters pertaining specifically to myself are irrelevant to the discussion. Age, gender, profession, nationality, country of origin, country of current occupation, personal experiences, etc. none of them have any bearing on the discussion and have been withheld for that reason.

Demonstrate where anyone has demanded that teachers wear firearms while performing their educational duties. Show that is is a mandate that can result in punishment for noncompliance.

And how would you propose going about preventing a massacre from occurring, when there is no way of predicting when they will occur, where they will occur, or who will be the one to commit them?

You may as well ask how to go about successfully preventing someone from becoming infected with a contagious disease that is airborne.

It is arrogance to believe that humankind has the ability to prevent anything and everything from occurring. Such is simply not the case. There are events that simply cannot be stopped, and problems for which there are no solutions. Not simply no easy solutions, but absolutely no solutions whatsoever. Mass killings are one of those problems that have no solutions whatsoever. The mass killing in the city of Nice, in the nation of France, is proof of this. When you can kill nearly one hundred people in less than five minutes with nothing but a single motor vehicle, there is nothing that can be done.

 

Then pray tell just how hard is it to actually shoot someone?

 

Then perhaps you should demonstrate why criminals choose to target police officers for attack.

First and foremost, it has been confirmed that approximately two thirds of the annual firearm-related deaths in the united states are suicides rather than homicide, thus meaning their deaths were no different than if they had chosen to slit their wrists.

Second, the FBI has confirmed that eighty percent of the remaining deaths are attributed to those who are known criminals with existing records that prohibit them from firearms possession.

Third, demonstrate precisely who you believe is directly responsible for these deaths, that would actually make the NRA at fault for them.

Your post has been read, and your points taken into account. And now it is time to dissect your position, and demonstrate the shortcomings of your argument.

Your entire position is one argued in arrogance. The conduct demonstrated in your above posts suggests financial security to the point of being able to afford a security system offered by a company with a recognized name, and the services it provides. You can also apparently afford multiple dogs, all thoroughly trained to a degree that makes them blindly obedient to yourself and not prone to their own canine instincts, as well as whatever veterinary fees would be attached to tending to multiple pets. This is apparently on top of owning a spacious two-story dwelling. It is for this very reason that your entire argument as to what is the best defense available, is devoid of sound logic, and rather is filled with arrogance and pomposity.

It is not known precisely how many revenue you invest in your own defense annually. However it is almost certainly an amount that exceeds the disposable income of a great many other individuals who personal protection budget will cover nothing more than one firearm, and one box of ammunition. There are those that do not have the luxury of affording a quality alarm system, and fully trained guard dogs that will not snap and attack a family member without provocation. They are not advantaged such as yourself, therefore anything you have to say about what is best is not relevant with regard to them. You are dismissing their financial situations out of hand in an elitist manner, and showing no concern for such facts, or those that must live by them.

It is for that reason that the logic of your position is being rejected.

 

It's the same with owning a firearm.

 

Anyone who denies that the NRA is responsible for the current gun fetish in this nation must be in blind love with the NRA and/or their guns and thus be in no position to make objective judgments about legitimate criticism of the NRA.

 

that's just plain contrary to known reality. We get that you are mad that the NRA helped keep hillary out of the white house. This country was well armed LONG before the NRA had to become political in order to counter the DNC pretending that gun control was crime control because the Dems didn't want to upset their black constituents by really cracking down on violent street crime when the DNC held all three branches of government in the mid 60s