freeworldgroup.com

This isn't about the VERY RECENT shooting.
This is about gun control in general.


Can someone explain why I should give the government only the rights to have firearms WHILE AT THE SAME TIME the police can have all the guns they can dream of.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for the police being a military state type police.

What I don't get is how can we have people defending both views at once, aka saying police shouldn't bear arms cause police brutality, but at the same time they want to give only the police the right to bear arms, and practically don't want to defend the (first?second? Whatever?) Amendment that is the only thing that gives civilians the power to defend against that. Explain pls.

Good idea, congregate all the salt in one area.

Let me put it to all of u anti gun ppl this way...

Imagine ur in one of these school shootings... and u dont have a gun.... What are you gonna do?

A) Go hide somewhere and hope you survive

B) Try to get away and helplessly wait on emergency police.

If u had a gun of your own you would be able to defend yourself and others around you.

Or what if someone broke into your home?? I'm sure you would want a gun to protect yourself?


What I'm trying to say is... You can't stop criminals from getting guns... so how is you not having one making your world safer?

Excalibur wrote:Let me put it to all of u anti gun ppl this way...

Imagine ur in one of these school shootings... and u dont have a gun.... What are you gonna do?

A) Go hide somewhere and hope you survive

B) Try to get away and helplessly wait on emergency police.

If u had a gun of your own you would be able to defend yourself and others around you.

Or what if someone broke into your home?? I'm sure you would want a gun to protect yourself?


What I'm trying to say is... You can't stop criminals from getting guns... so how is you not having one making your world safer?

School shootings, what school shootings? The last time a gun was used in a mass shooting in Britain was 1996. The last one in America was like? Probably five minutes ago for the sheer numeracy of the cases.

This is as ridiculous as saying 'imagine if you were in the camps during the holocaust and you had the option to run through a minefield to get to safety. Which would you rather? Go back to the camp to certain death or take a chance in the minefield?' There's one obvious answer to the latter.

But what I love about these examples is they so childishly leave out all other variables. Like breaking the legs of all your opponents in a relay race.

Removing guns simply removes a variable, you don't hear of mass school stabbings do you? There are very easy ways to make bombs, and they kill more people at once than guns then by that logic shouldn't there be far more bombings? It's obviously the fact that a gun is the first choice to easily kill several people with something that is legal to carry around, if you're stashing a pipe bomb in your pocket then you have a squad on you. But a gun is a: easily concealed, and b: is completely legal.

And you worried about a rise in knife crime, 55% of that is possession of a knife, half of people with a knife get caught before anything even happens. Could that be higher? Most certainly. But the rate of arrests for merely possessing a firearm is so much lower isn't it?

The Divine Potato wrote:

Excalibur wrote:Let me put it to all of u anti gun ppl this way...

Imagine ur in one of these school shootings... and u dont have a gun.... What are you gonna do?

A) Go hide somewhere and hope you survive

B) Try to get away and helplessly wait on emergency police.

If u had a gun of your own you would be able to defend yourself and others around you.

Or what if someone broke into your home?? I'm sure you would want a gun to protect yourself?


What I'm trying to say is... You can't stop criminals from getting guns... so how is you not having one making your world safer?

School shootings, what school shootings? The last time a gun was used in a mass shooting in Britain was 1996. The last one in America was like? Probably five minutes ago for the sheer numeracy of the cases.

This is as ridiculous as saying 'imagine if you were in the camps during the holocaust and you had the option to run through a minefield to get to safety. Which would you rather? Go back to the camp to certain death or take a chance in the minefield?' There's one obvious answer to the latter.

But what I love about these examples is they so childishly leave out all other variables. Like breaking the legs of all your opponents in a relay race.

Removing guns simply removes a variable, you don't hear of mass school stabbings do you? There are very easy ways to make bombs, and they kill more people at once than guns then by that logic shouldn't there be far more bombings? It's obviously the fact that a gun is the first choice to easily kill several people with something that is legal to carry around, if you're stashing a pipe bomb in your pocket then you have a squad on you. But a gun is a: easily concealed, and b: is completely legal.

And you worried about a rise in knife crime, 55% of that is possession of a knife, half of people with a knife get caught before anything even happens. Could that be higher? Most certainly. But the rate of arrests for merely possessing a firearm is so much lower isn't it?

They're americans tho school shootings have became a daily thing of life for them so they don't second guess it and think oh wait why don't all these other countries actually have school shooting that they're going to need to protect themselves from ???

The Dice Man wrote:

The Divine Potato wrote:

Excalibur wrote:Let me put it to all of u anti gun ppl this way...

Imagine ur in one of these school shootings... and u dont have a gun.... What are you gonna do?

A) Go hide somewhere and hope you survive

B) Try to get away and helplessly wait on emergency police.

If u had a gun of your own you would be able to defend yourself and others around you.

Or what if someone broke into your home?? I'm sure you would want a gun to protect yourself?


What I'm trying to say is... You can't stop criminals from getting guns... so how is you not having one making your world safer?

School shootings, what school shootings? The last time a gun was used in a mass shooting in Britain was 1996. The last one in America was like? Probably five minutes ago for the sheer numeracy of the cases.

This is as ridiculous as saying 'imagine if you were in the camps during the holocaust and you had the option to run through a minefield to get to safety. Which would you rather? Go back to the camp to certain death or take a chance in the minefield?' There's one obvious answer to the latter.

But what I love about these examples is they so childishly leave out all other variables. Like breaking the legs of all your opponents in a relay race.

Removing guns simply removes a variable, you don't hear of mass school stabbings do you? There are very easy ways to make bombs, and they kill more people at once than guns then by that logic shouldn't there be far more bombings? It's obviously the fact that a gun is the first choice to easily kill several people with something that is legal to carry around, if you're stashing a pipe bomb in your pocket then you have a squad on you. But a gun is a: easily concealed, and b: is completely legal.

And you worried about a rise in knife crime, 55% of that is possession of a knife, half of people with a knife get caught before anything even happens. Could that be higher? Most certainly. But the rate of arrests for merely possessing a firearm is so much lower isn't it?

They're americans tho school shootings have became a daily thing of life for them so they don't second guess it and think oh wait why don't all these other countries actually have school shooting that they're going to need to protect themselves from ???

Ding

If you're stashing a pipe bomb on you, they won't know unless you've told someone.

if you're stashing a pipe bomb in your pocket then you have a squad on you.

I would imagine that a rifle is harder to conceal than a pipe bomb.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26402367
Yeah... mass knife stabbings definitely won't happen... It's impossible for them to happen right?
I mean it's not like you still have the issue of one man being armed vs a bunch of people being unarmed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_at ... E2%80%9312)
oh look, mass school stabbings.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... spree.html

And you're implying mass school stabbings don't and won't happen.

Apparently knife crime has gotten so bad that the police departments are telling people to not fight back.
http://lancashire.police.uk/help-advice ... crime.aspx
Great.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/10 ... 81511.html
the standard.co.uk says 400 people a month are injured by knives (in 2013)

Schools are great target for mass shootings. It's safe to say that nobody has a gun on them, meaning the only way to take down a shooter is by throwing stuff at him or charging him.
Chris Mintz did just that and got 7 times.
Now, wouldn't it be amazing if the students and teachers were armed? They could shoot the shooter after he's made everyone aware of himself. They wouldn't need to charge the shooter. Therefore it'd be more likely that they take down the shooter first trying, lowering the amount of people at risk for dying. A dead shooter can't shoot people.
Well what would knowing that students and teachers are armed do? Well again shooters go to schools because students are almost completely defenseless. They don't go to other places because there is an honest chance that someone might be armed and might take him out before he can do any serious damage.
You know the saying "don't bring a knife to a gun fight". I'm saying don't bring a fist to a gun fight.

lol it's easy to say "Remove all guns".... what you non Americans don't realize is that America is much larger than your respective countries and the people are very different. You cant compare oranges to apples. The second amendment guarantees all Americans the right to own and use guns...

FOR ANY POLITICIAN TO CHALLENGE THE 2ND AMENDMENT WOULD BE POLITICAL SUICIDE... no one is going to do it.

Also trying to change this would cause an uproar in the South where guns are an integral part of some people's lives.

Excalibur wrote:lol it's easy to say "Remove all guns".... what you non Americans don't realize is that America is much larger than your respective countries and the people are very different. You cant compare oranges to apples. The second amendment guarantees all Americans the right to own and use guns...

FOR ANY POLITICIAN TO CHALLENGE THE 2ND AMENDMENT WOULD BE POLITICAL SUICIDE... no one is going to do it.

Also trying to change this would cause an uproar in the South where guns are an integral part of some people's lives.

um first up im sure you mean the united states of america, not america as a whole, since canada and south america have their own agendas, and have you seen the size of australia? its fucking massive, and we have gone through the same massacres as you have, only we dont anymore because we put laws into effect

Yes, Australia does have a large population, but Australia has a population of ~24,000,000, compared to the United States, which has a population of ~321,000,000. Not saying that I think that gun control is right or wrong, just saying that the United States is actually very large.