I'm violating their rights to hide behind a gun and pop off? Interesting take, that. Nah, I prefer my freedom to the tyranny caused by guns, whether the guns be carried by cops, paramilitary thugs, or street criminals.
You're violating their rights by assaulting them because they annoy you. Now you're upset you can no longer do so and wish people with guns to step in to disarm other people with guns on your behalf so you can go back to assaulting them because they annoy you. You have the freedom to disarm yourself. Have fun with that. You do not have the freedom to disarm me. You will not have fun with that, I assure you.
Are you saying that legally licensed carriers of firearms are being aggressive with you? If they are carrying concealed how do you know that they are armed?
You're right; the fact that there IS less crime cannot be SOLELY attributed to the fact that there ARE more guns. However, you cannot assert that more guns causes more crime, because that clearly is not the case. If the number and availability of guns were tied to the amount of crimes, then you would have seen a correlating increase in crimes. That you are seeing a DECREASE in crime and an INCREASE in gun ownership, is a pretty clear indication that "guns != crimes".
So you favor engaging in assault and battery over hearing something that you did not like to hear. And you wonder why some wish to be armed for their own protection. It has actually been shown that liberals are far more likely to "pop off" than conservatives, due to having poorer impulse control. The standard you favor is engaging in random criminal assault, in response to being told something that you did not like. The standard you oppose, is possibly being shot in self defense by someone you would seek to brutalize because you cannot bear to hear what they have to say.
I'm sure your fellow gun-control advocate Sen. Leland Yee is behind you 100%. That would let him make a lot of money importing guns made in other countries.
This too, is how I came to realize that NOT owning a gun was as irresponsible as not owning health/life insurance. As a former Marine, I'm no stranger to weapons. After getting out of the military and living in Japan for 16 years the thought of owning a gun never crossed my mind. Japan is far from perfect, but guns simply do not exist there. The reason they do not exist is because people who commit violent crimes there are heavily punished, the act disgraces the entire family, and they have a "group-minded" vs an "individual-minded" society. I lived there through several major earthquakes, and during times of emergency and chaos they stoically lined up to receive food and water, and assisted each other towards a common goal. A major disaster in the US results in people stomping all over each other for limited resources. Within two years of moving back to the US I've been robbed, and often do not feel safe in broad daylight. In Japan I could leave every door and window open, go anywhere at any time and feel safe. It's hard to describe the difference if you've never experienced it. Now I am armed and prepared, and so will my wife and children be. I refuse to be a victim, and anyone who tries to harm me or my family, or infringe on my rights will find out just how prepared and capable I am of ending their threat. Like my life insurance and health policies, the last thing I want to do is need to use my weapon. If that time comes however, there will be 2 in someones chest and one in their head.
Japan lacks diversity thats why they have so much violence, they're a racist homophobic people. Oh sorry mustve misread, you felt safe there. Hmm so much for diversity being some super human strength.
Are you seriously asking me just where people have the right to not be assaulted because they annoy you? There you have it folks! Case in point. As to where does the constitution protect the right to keep and bear arms, that would be the 2nd amendment. I suppose you'll have to touch the stove to learn. Go on then.
"Diversity Training" is something they came up with so they could ram racist laws like "Affirmative Action" down our throats. Racism, that's bad. Apparently fighting racism with more racism is acceptable however.
Where does the constitution protect bullies? You have already demonstrated that you prefer the use of violence with those you do not like. You have no further reason to be involved in this discussion, as anything you present from here on out will be tainted by your stated desire to hurt others you disagree with.
It's just an excuse to take guns away from us. The history of countries like the UK & Japan show us how "reasonable" controls end up as gun banning. We're not falling for it. If you want to keep people safe work on the social dynamics that drive crime & stop wasting time on guns.
Japan is a different animal. Not sure how to describe what it's like there. Even the police don't carry weapons often. Violent crime is ridiculously low, but there was at least one incident while I was there where a looney toon attacked a school with a knife.
a woman I know well who used to live there was a famous martial artist. Some drunk tried to rape her. bad mistake. When the cops came she was trying to fix her torn skirt. He was trying to hold his guts in with a broken arm after being almost disemboweled. apparently the cops smacked him around for 1) trying to attack an American lady. 2) and getting his ass kicked by someone who held multiple black belts in everything from Akido to swords.
True what you say about Japan today. Their experience with losing their guns happened 3 - 400 years ago. I was surprised to learn that at one time they made some of the best guns in the world. http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html
The police of the nation of Japan regularly resort to the use of torture to extract a confession. http://gvnet.com/torture/Japan.htm http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/world/asia/11japan.html?pagewanted=all
Japan isn't perfect by any means, but I have a lot of firsthand knowledge from living there. I'm sure these kinds of things happen (they also happen here....) but it's the exception not the rule. From the first website: "CAUTION: The following links have been culled from the web to illuminate the situation in Japan. Some of these links may lead to websites that present allegations that are unsubstantiated or even false. No attempt has been made to validate their authenticity or to verify their content." Also here are the allegations of "abuse" and "torture": Although prison rules remained confidential, reported punishments included forcing Japanese prisoners to kneel motionless in an empty cell for several hours at a time and requiring foreigners and inmates with disabilities to sit on a hard stool. While the Prison Law Enforcement Regulation stipulates that the maximum time prisoners may be held in single cells is 6 months, wardens continued to have broad leeway in enforcing punishments selectively, including "minor solitary confinement," which may be imposed for a minimum of 1 and not more than 60 days. Parole may not be granted for any reason, including medical and humanitarian reasons, until an inmate has served two-thirds of his or her sentence. That pretty much sounds how criminals should be treated. It's a lot better than our culture where they lift weights, network with like minded criminal professionals, have TV's, computers and other forms of entertainment. Hell in this country going to prison is a badge of honor for many of these jackasses. Since gun charges against them are the first things dropped, it's no wonder they are all armed in the first place. Japan has it right. Prison should be a place where your only right is to be kept alive until release. If you can't treat the rest of society in a respectful, humane manner, then first thing you should lose is your right to respectful, humane treatment. I'm not talking bamboo slivers under the fingernails, but let's face it, on a spectrum military boot camp is closer to torture than our current prison systems.
Its sad and mentally sick when someone uses the murdered people to make their mentally sick stance concerning gun control. they obviously care more about guns than human lives.
