[paraclete]

You must not take it personally, it is intended to make it safer for you

[J_9]

How would taking my protection away from me make me feel safer?

[Alty]

How would taking my protection away from me make me feel safer?

Because everyone else would have that "protection" taken away as well.

It's simple math. If everyone around you can't access high powered weapons, you don't need high powered weapons to protect yourself.

If a criminal is forced to use a knife because he can't purchase a gun, then you don't need an automatic weapon to defend yourself.

I think you all don't realize that gun laws would affect everyone. That would mean that you don't need to protect yourself to the level you are right now, because there wouldn't be any extremely dangerous weapons out there to protect against.

[J_9]

That's really silly Alty. Drugs are illegal but we still have a drug problem. Guns would be illegal and we will still have a gun problem.

By making guns illegal you take them away from the law abiding citizens. If you think criminals are going to give up their guns you aren't living in reality in America.

[Alty]

That's really silly Alty. Drugs are illegal but we still have a dry problem. Guns would be illegal and we will still have a gun problem.

By making guns illegal you take them away from the law abiding citizens. If you think criminals are going to give up their guns you aren't living in reality in America.

You're right, I don't live in America. Do you really think people are that different in Canada? The only difference is our laws. We have drugs in Canada, we have crime in Canada, we have gangs, we even have shootings. There's not an iota's worth of difference between Americans and Canadians, when it comes to issues and people. The only major difference is our laws. If you look at the statistics, those laws really do speak for themselves.

Are you forgetting that I live in a town that's only 4km away from a major city? Compare my Canadian city to any major city in the US and you won't see many differences. One major difference, we have "no knives allowed" postings on the bars in the city near me. In the US you don't need to worry about knives, you need to worry about guns, because most people have one. In Canada, seeing someone carrying a gun is like catching a glimpse of a siamese twin. Not a common occurrence.

I understand why most Americans are so against stricter gun laws. But you're literally shooting yourselves in the foot.

Bottom line, if you refuse to have stricter gun laws, follow the examples set by others, then you have to accept the deaths that result in that, as part of your right to bear arms, because sadly, everyone has the same right to high powered weapons that you do.

So, when you see a shooting where 20 children are killed, when you see a massacre in a theater where 12 people are killed, and numerous others are seriously injured, when you see this happening numerous times a year, you really have to accept that as part of your refusal to have stricter laws. You have to accept that as the price you pay to get what you want. It really does come down to that. It's really a matter of "I want to have the right to the weapons I wish to have, and I'm willing to sacrifice a few lives to maintain that right". I hate saying it, but that's really what it boils down to.

Edit: As for drugs. If someone wants to kill them self by doing drugs, I may not like it, but they're only hurting themselves. Guns, not so much. When that person hurts, they rarely limit it to themselves.

[J_9]

Basically the bottom line is that it is my Constitutional right to bear arms. 2nd Amendment to be exact.

Let's look at the theater killer. What has become of him? He has been found NGRI (Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity). He was mentally ill just as this guy was. So rather than focusing on the real issue here, you non-Americans are focusing on the method used. It's like blaming the car when someone dies rather that blaming the drunk who was driving the car. It's like blaming the fire but protecting the arsonist.

There are ways to fix the problem without taking away our constitutional rights, but no one wants to hear that. No one wants to focus on the actual root of the problem.

[J_9]

Alty... as for the drugs... come spend time with me when I work in the ER. The addicts are not hurting only themselves. They stab their significant others because of hallucinations. The molest and kill babies that are 17 days old. That's just two of my days lat week in the ER. Neither of those people used a gun. But both of those people were mentally ill and using drugs to self medicate.

The answer to this issue is to bring back affordable mental health care. Bring back state run mental hospitals.

It's not the sane people committing the crimes, it's the mentally ill and these people could have been stopped if there were programs in place to help them before they got this sick.

[Alty]

Basically the bottom line is that it is my Constitutional right to bear arms. 2nd Ammendment to be exact.

Let's look at the theater killer. What has become of him? He has been found NGRI (Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity). He was mentally ill just as this guy was. So rather than focusing on the real issue here, you non-Americans are focusing on the method used. It's like blaming the car when someone dies rather that blaming the drunk who was driving the car. It's like blaming the fire but protecting the arsonist.

There are ways to fix the problem without taking away our constitutional rights, but no one wants to hear that. No one wants to focus on the actual root of the problem.

J, that's ridiculous. I can't even respond to it because there's no way to. Your gun a laws are the very root of the problem. Comparing guns to drunk driving, that makes no sense. No disrespect intended, I think you know that I do respect you, I just don't agree with you, not at all.

Yes, you have your second amendment, and so does every one else in the US. Everyone! Every single person, has the right to bear arms. Every druggy, every insane lunatic, everyone.

Are you a responsible gun owner? Of course you are. I know that. I don't question that for a minute. But, since you have the right to bear arms, so does everyone else.

They can go out and purchase a weapon that should only be in the hands of a solider at war, fighting for your country, and if that person decides that he doesn't like pre-schoolers one day (because he's mentally ill, which I'm not disupting), he can take those weapons and gun them down. If that insane idiot doesn't have access to those weapons, then what happens? He takes a knife to the school and injures a few people? Still a tragedy, but not nearly the tragedy that unfolded on Friday.

You all keep trying to find the solution to this. Video games are too violent, parents aren't doing their job, mental illness, drugs, you name it. Instead of focusing on the one thing you can control, which is keeping weapons of mass destruction away from the people that are suffering through these issues. Why? Because it means you'll have to give up your weapons of mass destruction as well.

Do you not realize how ludicrous that is? If you have a toddler with a toy, and he constantly takes that toy and pokes himself in the eye, over and over and over, what do you do? You take the toy away! You don't try to figure out why he pokes himself, you don't blame it on everything else, you just take the toy away. Problem solved. No toy, no eye poking.

I adore you J, you know that. I just don't agree with you, and contrary to what you may believe, I'm not some naïve girl from Canada. I'm a pretty smart cookie, and I've looked at this from all angles. I see this issue very clearly. I also see that you and I are never going to agree on this issue. I stated that in my original post. I knew this wouldn't lead anywhere. I really didn't even want to be a part of this thread. I only started it so that the other thread would be left alone, and not turned into the war on guns we have going here. I don't want it to be a war that ends up costing me someone I care about, even if we can't agree on this one issue.

On that note, I'm going to bed, I have to deal with retail hell tomorrow, and frankly, most of the customers I had to deal with today should be grateful that we have strict gun laws. Just saying. ;)

[paraclete]

One thing tio think about, where I come from we don't need to worry about bringing a knife to a gun fight

[J_9]

Alty... first I want you to know that I take no offense to ehst uou have said and I ask the same in return. I enjoy a friendly discussion.

I don't even know how to begin to respond because it is very clear that you really don't understand our gun laws the way you think you
Do. The weapons that are in the hands of the military cannot be purchased by an ordinary citizen. They are military only and not available to the public. The general public can purchase magazines (not clips) that hold a minimum amount of rounds. High cap Mag's are available to military and police only. The term "assault rifle" is very misleading. The rifle this man used is a popular deer hunting rifle, it just looks intimidating. You are very misled on what types of firearms are available to the general public.

Your comparison of a toddler poking himself in the eye is ludicrous as well. Because one toddler pokes himself in the eye the whole class should be punished?

Again, and no disrespect to you cause you are my online best friends, as a German-Canadian, you really haven't a clue about what kinds of guns are available to whom. What you said above is proof of that.

Let me give you a hypothetical and think before you respond. Please respond as I'm interested to hear what you have to say...

Rod and Jared have to go out of town for the weekend. It's just you and Syd at home. Syd is asleep in her room when the window breaks and a huge monster of a man climbs through the window and goes after Syd. He's going to rape her. You know you can't overpower him, but you have a revolver and you could shoot him to save her or you can call the cops. Now it might take the cops 15 minutes to get there. What are you going to do?

[J_9]

Now let's say that all you have to save her is a steak knife. What do you think will happen?

[J_9]

And no, it's not ludicrous, you are blaming the gun and not finding fault with the person who pulled the trigger.

[J_9]

Can any of you give an instance of when gun use actually saved lives? I can give a few examples but I want to hear from you first.

Funny how these don't make the main-stream liberal media.

[paraclete]

I can think of an number of instances where they have cost lives even in the hands of police, there was one recent incident I believe where a citizen with a gun forced a thief to back off, but of course the outcome could have been very different. I heard of an 80 year old man who recently tackled two armed thieves and beat them, but if they came armed with guns he would have been dead

If there were less guns people would have to be trained in self defense wouldn't they? Look, you put forward an emotional hyperthetical but in reality you also tell us your right to have a gun is supposed to deter this situation. If your gun is stored as it should be you will not have time to retrieve it and load it so you will need to handle the situation differently

[tomder55]

Where was the police protection in Newtown ? Late to the party .Perhaps the question might be asked. Why was an elementary school targeted ;why a theater in a 'gun-free zone' ? Why was a college campus that has similar restrictions targeted ? I'd bet Portland Oregon has similar restrictions like no conceal and carry . I'm sure no one in the Sikh temple attack in Wisconsin was armed except the attacker.
2 houses... one has a 'gun free zone 'sign in front and the other has a 'protected with an R-15 ' .Guess which home will get broken into.

[NeedKarma]

Now let's say that all you have to save her is a steak knife. What do you think will happen?

One person at the most possibly dies.

[tomder55]

Yeah the one with the knife protecting self ,and property.

[cdad]

Alty... first i want you to know that i take no offense to ehst uou have said and i ask the same in return. I enjoy a friendly discussion.

I don't even know how to begin to respond because it is very clear that you really don't understand our gun laws the way you think you
do. The weapons that are in the hands of the military cannot be purchased by an ordinary citizen. They are military only and not available to the public. The general public can purchase magazines (not clips) that hold a minimum amount of rounds. High cap Mag's are available to military and police only. The term "assault rifle" is very misleading. The rifle this man used is a popular deer hunting rifle, it just looks intimidating. You are very misled on what types of firearms are available to the general public.

Im sorry J but I can't let this go. Im going to be sending to your room to do a little research and study. High capacity mags as well as drum mags are readily available to the general public. Mostly it is State law that puts the limits on capacity. Places like California have a limitation of 10 rounds for anything. Pistol or rifle it doesn't matter. Other states like Tennessee have no limitation on capacity. Also the AR15 in .223 is not a deer rifle. It is a varmit rifle. The difference being that it is considered cruel to the animal to not have a quick kill when hunting and hunters respect that. So this round is best suited for smaller game. The AR10 on the other hand (looks like the AR15) is a deer rifle because it shoots a 308 round and can drop a deer on the spot.

[NeedKarma]

There's no doubt that your gun culture is too far gone to be retrenched. That's not the case in other countries.
My response was referring to mass killings reduced if they only had a knife.

[cdad]

You're right, I don't live in America. Do you really think people are that different in Canada? The only difference is our laws. We have drugs in Canada, we have crime in Canada, we have gangs, we even have shootings. There's not an iota's worth of difference between Americans and Canadians, when it comes to issues and people. The only major difference is our laws. If you look at the statistics, those laws really do speak for themselves.

Are you forgetting that I live in a town that's only 4km away from a major city? Compare my Canadian city to any major city in the US and you wont' see many differences. One major difference, we have "no knives allowed" postings on the bars in the city near me. In the US you don't need to worry about knives, you need to worry about guns, because most people have one. In Canada, seeing someone carrying a gun is like catching a glimpse of a siamese twin. Not a common occurrence.

I understand why most Americans are so against stricter gun laws. But you're literally shooting yourselves in the foot.

Bottom line, if you refuse to have stricter gun laws, follow the examples set by others, then you have to accept the deaths that result in that, as part of your right to bear arms, because sadly, everyone has the same right to high powered weapons that you do.

So, when you see a shooting where 20 children are killed, when you see a massacre in a theater where 12 people are killed, and numerous others are seriously injured, when you see this happening numerous times a year, you really have to accept that as part of your refusal to have stricter laws. You have to accept that as the price you pay to get what you want. It really does come down to that. It's really a matter of "I want to have the right to the weapons I wish to have, and I'm willing to sacrifice a few lives to maintain that right". I hate saying it, but that's really what it boils down to.

Edit: As for drugs. If someone wants to kill them self by doing drugs, I may not like it, but they're only hurting themselves. Guns, not so much. When that person hurts, they rarely limit it to themselves.

Alty I do accept the responsibility that goes with being a gun owner. Yes there are crazy people out there. That is part of the world we live in. I accept it as I accept driving a automobile / truck down the roadway. More people are killed by autos then are killed by guns. I see no need to eliminate them either. Does the shooting sadden me? Yes it does. Saying it is a tragidy doesn't seem strong enough. The difference that I see through my eyes vs what you see through yours is that in situations like this if more people carried responsibly and had access it could have been stopped sooner. There are countless stories of responsible gun owners putting a stop to situations before they got out of hand or stopping a crime in progress. Being responsible is a way to not only protect yourself but others as well. The fact that we may need a weapon may be a sad commentary about the society we live in but if that is part of living here Im going to stay. If everyone were to carry then criminals would think twice before even pulling a gun as they would know they are outnumbered.