Gabby Giffords: We need gun control to protect the Precious Women

[pcosmar]

I am still not comfortable with guns being so easily accessible to every degenerate criminal, nor do I like the idea of stupid people owning guns- how many times do you hear of some kid finding his fathers handgun (used for protection) and blowing his or his little sisters brains out? I hate stories like that.

Gun laws do nothing to stop criminals.. (and not all "criminals" are degenerates.)
I am a prohibited person. I can not legally own a gun.. an yet,, I could have a gun at any time.. I can build one. or I could steal one.

I chose to comply with the law for the time being.

And as far as Children,, and accidents..
Education is better,, not only for guns,, but for poisons under the sink,, or power tools.

[pcosmar]

There's a whole lot of dumb gun owners was my point.

A lot of dumb knife owners as well. people cutting themselves and others all the time.

Lots of dumb Car owners (more so than guns)
not sure what your point is ??

[pcosmar]

#YesArmAllWomen

Good stuff, Damian. I'd rep you but I'm outta...

Tried that.. Got arrested and convicted for my wife's gun.

[pessimist]

Gun laws do nothing to stop criminals.. (and not all "criminals" are degenerates.)
I am a prohibited person. I can not legally own a gun.. an yet,, I could have a gun at any time.. I can build one. or I could steal one.

I chose to comply with the law for the time being.

And as far as Children,, and accidents..
Education is better,, not only for guns,, but for poisons under the sink,, or power tools.

Yeah I know not all criminals are degenerate- I was referring to the ones who are. The guy that walks into a 7-Eleven and puts a bullet in the head of the cashier for a few measly bucks is pretty low in the gene pool. There are too many people like that- none of them would have a problem finding a gun in this country due to so many people having one.

On the other hand, because there are so many lunatics, rapists, killers, and other assorted violent criminals- citizens should have the right to defend themselves and protect their families and private property. Guns are a great tool for that.

I have mixed feelings on the issue, but I don't support gun control anymore. However, I do think some restrictions are necessary.

Oh, and I agree with education. Also, firearm training. Perhaps requiring training in firearms before you can own one would be a good idea?

[pessimist]

A lot of dumb knife owners as well. people cutting themselves and others all the time.

Lots of dumb Car owners (more so than guns)
not sure what your point is ??

I was originally stating one of the reasons I used to be pro gun control.

I agree with your points.

[juleswin]

This doesn't even make sense. Men are physically stronger than women. Why would a man need a weapon beyond their fists if their intent was to inflict harm on a woman? What a dufus.

Exactly, if anyone needs a gun in a relationship, its the woman. Most men can do all the damage they desire to a woman without ever having to pull a gun. Plus if you are in a relationship with a dangerous man, the best thing would be to leave and buy yourself a fiream instead of just hoping the govt takes his firearm.

[CaptUSA]

Oh, and I agree with education. Also, firearm training. Perhaps requiring training in firearms before you can own one would be a good idea?

Exactly. Because we all know the second amendment reads as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people who have passed a government-approved safety course to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[DamianTV]

Wanna know what is more dangerous than a gun? Get a dart board and just throw random $#@! up on it. More people die from falling off furniuture and getting hit in the head with hammers than get shot by guns. Prescription medications also kill more people than guns. Excluding Govt guns and Cop on Citizen Violence, Citizen on Citizen Gun Violence has been going DOWN for a long time, despite our population continuing to increase and completely opposite of what MSM would have you believe. Eek! Gun! He must be a criminal!

I'll say it again...

The 2nd Amendment does NOT exist to enable thieves to commit armed robbery.

... which is the exact opposite of what MSM will tell you.

[jkr]

what about this Precious-Women "gaBBy"

[pessimist]

Exactly. Because we all know the second amendment reads as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people who have passed a government-approved safety course to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Did the founders live in a nation of 314 million people? This country (and the world) is tad different than it was in 1787.

[pessimist]

Wanna know what is more dangerous than a gun? Get a dart board and just throw random $#@! up on it. More people die from falling off furniuture and getting hit in the head with hammers than get shot by guns. Prescription medications also kill more people than guns. Excluding Govt guns and Cop on Citizen Violence, Citizen on Citizen Gun Violence has been going DOWN for a long time, despite our population continuing to increase and completely opposite of what MSM would have you believe. Eek! Gun! He must be a criminal!

I'll say it again...

The 2nd Amendment does NOT exist to enable thieves to commit armed robbery.

... which is the exact opposite of what MSM will tell you.

Of course there is danger everywhere. Obviously a person who wants to kill will find a way...be it stabbing or strangling someone to death, making a homemade bomb, running a car through a crowd, etc.

However, you have to admit that guns make mass killings far more easier.

[tod evans]

Of course there is danger everywhere. Obviously a person who wants to kill will find a way...be it stabbing or strangling someone to death, making a homemade bomb, running a car through a crowd, etc.

However, you have to admit that guns make mass killings far more easier.

Insane and ludicrous argument used to counter the 2nd..

Realistically if Americans hadn't been conditioned to stop carrying firearms mass killings would be much more infrequent.

Dependence on government is the problem not guns, not crazy people.

[CaptUSA]

However, you have to admit that guns make mass killings far more easier.

Maybe easier, but no more frequent. Mass killing are exceedingly rare. Using that for a justification for restricting gun ownership in any way would be like physically examining every traveler because there was once a terrorist attack. Ok, maybe that's a poor example.

[brushfire]

Insane and ludicrous argument used to counter the 2nd..

Realistically if Americans hadn't been conditioned to stop carrying firearms mass killings would be much more infrequent.

Dependence on government is the problem not guns, not crazy people.

So true

What about bombs? Do bombs make mass killings easier? Seems that in areas where people have lots of access to guns, the bomb is still the weapon of choice.
Sooo.... all we need to do is make bombs illegal, right? There, problem solved.... Life is much easier when you let government create solve all the problems.

For those who are burdened with thinking for themselves, its plain to see that stripping people of their 2nd Amendment is only going to serve one entity, and that is a tyrannical government. Such an act stands to benefit nobody else. No guns does not = safety. In fact, it is the inverse. This has been proven time and time again.

As in the Aurora shooting, as though someone who could have been carrying that day would add to the blood bath. People like Gabby (or more likely her keepers) think that leaving the situation up to the assailant, the reliability of their equipment, or the availability of ammo, is somehow better than having an armed individual who has a vested interest in stopping an active shooter. If we're going to talk about mental illness, we might want to begin with that mindset.

[Pericles]

...................... However, I do think some restrictions are necessary.

Oh, and I agree with education. Also, firearm training. Perhaps requiring training in firearms before you can own one would be a good idea?

A restriction always operates to someone's advantage. Who gains an advantage when there are restrictions on firearms possession and ownership?

Who determines what training is acceptable? See previous paragraph.

A life of liberty requires tolerating some degree of risk.

[brushfire]

A life of liberty requires tolerating some degree of risk.

Another very true statement

[pessimist]

A restriction always operates to someone's advantage. Who gains an advantage when there are restrictions on firearms possession and ownership?

Who determines what training is acceptable? See previous paragraph.

A life of liberty requires tolerating some degree of risk.

I don't understand what the big deal is? I mean, we need to pass two tests to drive a car, right?

Don't most jobs require some form of training? The guy operating heavy machinery has to go through rigorous training beforehand.

Firearms are dangerous, and were designed purely to kill. So I really don't see how it is 'infringing' on people's rights by requiring some form of training before being permitted to own one.

Should we do away with driver’s license, and let everyone drive a car the moment they turn 16? Why even require a driver’s license?

[Pericles]

I don't understand what the big deal is? I mean, we need to pass two tests to drive a car, right?

Don't most jobs require some form of training? The guy operating heavy machinery has to go through rigorous training beforehand.

Firearms are dangerous, and were designed purely to kill. So I really don't see how it is 'infringing' on people's rights by requiring some form of training before being permitted to own one.

Should we do away with driver’s license, and let everyone drive a car the moment they turn 16? Why even require a driver’s license?

Is there any evidence that the driver's licensing scheme really has a positive impact on accidents or death rates? Depending on who you choose to believe, the percentage of uninsured / unlicensed drivers in Texas may be as high as 20%.

Self defense being a fundamental human right, and firearms being a manifestation or that right, even fewer restrictions on the exercise of that right may be tolerated.

[DamianTV]

Of course there is danger everywhere. Obviously a person who wants to kill will find a way...be it stabbing or strangling someone to death, making a homemade bomb, running a car through a crowd, etc.

However, you have to admit that guns make mass killings far more easier.

So if using guns makes killing people easier, why are there LESS gun deaths today than in earlier in history?

The problem is that if we really wanted, we can make everything illegal, but it isnt a solution. Taking physical things away isnt a solution either. Lets say someone wanted to shoot me, and they had a reason to. Take away the gun, they still have the intent. Just like you said. But once the gun is taken away, next, they may try to stab me. Take away the knife. Intent to kill me still exists. So they move on to the next possible way to kill me, of which, there are plenty. Strangle me. Probably with a rope or cord. Still easily taken away, but now getting difficult to outlaw ropes and cords. They might try to hit me with a car. They arent going to give a $#@! about having insurance on the car, or even care if the car is theirs so they can flat out steal it and try to run me down with it. Once everything has been taken away, a person might be able to still use their own body as a weapon. What do we do then? Put the person in prison? That would make sense, but the way that things are being applied today is to put every single person in a jail cell, and I mean EVERYONE, not just criminals, and all for our own protection from each other. Better yet, put everyone in a straight jacket in a prison cell on a bump on a log on a wart on a frog at the bottom of the sea. Prevent any unapproved human interaction. That is no solution. Sure it might offer some small degree of security but at the expense of total loss of all freedoms.

Lets flip it around though. They have a gun and I dont. Doesnt matter how they got their gun, bought or more likely stolen. That is when I am most vunerable. Then I decide to go get a gun. I get it because I think to myself "Would I not actually be safer if I were able to defend myself"? There are times that gun deaths are valid. Im gonna hurt you and you shoot me in self defense. Id say that is a valid reason. Now, if the person that intended to cause me harm knew I had a gun and was willing to use it to defend myself, do you think they might try an alternative to shooting me? Maybe by reasoning with me? Mabye a lesser application of physical violence? If you and me got in a fist fight in a bar, then its a fist fight, but Im not gonna try to end your life, just win the fight. Minimum necessary force, or at least a Reasonable Level of force. I dont want to start a war of escalation. Kid deserves a spanking then they used to get spankings, not executions, but outlawing Belts and Pants isnt going to stop spankings.

---

I don't understand what the big deal is? I mean, we need to pass two tests to drive a car, right?

Don't most jobs require some form of training? The guy operating heavy machinery has to go through rigorous training beforehand.

Firearms are dangerous, and were designed purely to kill. So I really don't see how it is 'infringing' on people's rights by requiring some form of training before being permitted to own one.

Should we do away with driver’s license, and let everyone drive a car the moment they turn 16? Why even require a driver’s license?

Do babies need a license to learn how to walk? Should someone grant them permission to try to learn to walk? Walking is dangerous! They can walk into table corners or off cliffs, so shouldnt we require Training for babies by authorized personnel only? Maybe we should give some small group of dominant men a $#@!load of money for Walking Insurance, and have a requirement to have Walking Insurance before allowing a baby to learn how to walk as well! /total_sarcasm

The problem with this statement is that you are converting Rights into Permissions.

Those with the power to Grant Permissions can become abusive with that power. Guns are not exactly difficult to figure out how to use. The other side of this coin is that Rights also literally mean Personal Responsibility. Guess who else can get shot with guns? The person holding the gun. They understand that it is in their best interest to learn to use a gun as quickly and as safely as possible. If you dont, you end up with Dick Cheney shooting at you during hunting season, or shooting themselves in their own foot, as many a cop has already done. The idea of undermining a Right based on irresponsible usage of that Right is no ground to stand on in an attempt to revoke a Right. Criminals are NOT going to take a Gun Safety Class before committing an armed robbery where they shoot the clerk over twenty bucks and change. They are NOT going to register their gun. They are NOT going to buy insurance. They are probably not even going to buy the gun itself, as they can just as easily steal one. If one criminal sells a gun to another criminal, they are NOT going to do background checks. You cant remove the intent of armed robbery from a criminal by making requirements that only punish the truly self responsible gun owner. Every legal and physical method of restriction can be as easily bypassed by the criminal. Even if you were to outlaw the manufacture of all guns period, they would find a way to make their own guns. Take all knives out of prisons and inmates make their own, which are called Shivs.

Its just not possible to outlaw intent to commit criminal or irresponsible behavior at the expense of someone else.

[pessimist]

So if using guns makes killing people easier, why are there LESS gun deaths today than in earlier in history

There are more people who use guns to shoot up schools and malls and post offices and public places than there are who drive a car through a crowd.

You do have the occasional knife wielding maniac running around slicing people up, but most mass murders occur via the use of firearms in this country. You cannot dispute that.

The problem is that if we really wanted, we can make everything illegal, but it isnt a solution.

I'm not advocating gun-grabbing or the outlawing firearms.

taking physical things away isnt a solution either.

Well making things harder to get can be a deterrent. Some mentally ill kid pumped full of anti-depressants who wants to murder a bunch of his classmates only needs to go to his father’s gun cabinet for his weapons. If guns weren't so widely available, he may decide another method (e.g., making a bomb) but the likelihood of success is slimmer. He's more likely to make a bomb that doesn't work, or end up blowing himself up in the process.

The vast majority of folks who commit mass murder are on suicide missions- it's either suicide by cop, or from the barrel of their own gun. If they had no easy access to firearms, they may just off themselves rather than taking a bunch of innocents with them.

I'm just theorizing here.

Take away the gun, they still have the intent.

Firearms make their goals much easier to achieve.

But once the gun is taken away, next, they may try to stab me.

True, but there aren't many mass killings via the use of knives.

Do babies need a license to learn how to walk? Should someone grant them permission to try to learn to walk? Walking is dangerous! They can walk into table corners or off cliffs, so shouldnt we require Training for babies by authorized personnel only? Maybe we should give some small group of dominant men a $#@!load of money for Walking Insurance, and have a requirement to have Walking Insurance before allowing a baby to learn how to walk as well! /total_sarcasm

The problem with this statement is that you are converting Rights into Permissions.

I'm not sure how gun ownership is on par with breathing air and having the right to vote.

[pessimist]

Is there any evidence that the driver's licensing scheme really has a positive impact on accidents or death rates? Depending on who you choose to believe, the percentage of uninsured / unlicensed drivers in Texas may be as high as 20%.

I'm not sure how to respond to this. So I will ask a question:

Do you think we should get rid of a driver license altogether? What about age restrictions?

[bunklocoempire]

pessimist, what life experiences have you had regarding protecting yourself, your loved ones, or your property?

I'm particularly interested in any "in the moment" situations where you had to do something to react to a nefarious action of another.

[pessimist]

pessimist, what life experiences have you had regarding protecting yourself, your loved ones, or your property?

I'm particularly interested in any "in the moment" situations where you had to do something to react to a nefarious action of another.

I was mostly theorizing in my posts above. Like I said, I changed my position. Guns are a great tool for self-defense. However their sole purpose is to kill, therefore I think adequate training should be necessary.

I don't see why people have such a problem with that. Restrictions are needed in life, otherwise we'd have anarchy.

[bunklocoempire]

I understand you've changed your position.

I also understand if you don't have any life experiences regarding protecting yourself, your loved ones, or your property, you will tend to have the view that you hold.

No experiences with that? None at all? Never been behind the eight ball in need of a gun NOW?

[Danke]

There are more people who use guns to shoot up schools and malls and post offices and public places than there are who drive a car through a crowd.

And if everyone acted as to be responsible for their own safety and that of others, any active shooter would have nearly all of his potential targets shooting back at him and neutralizing the threat to life.

[Danke]

Restrictions are needed in life, otherwise we'd have anarchy FREEDOM.

Fixed.


And, OMG, people acting responsibly or else facing the wrath of the neighbors/community.

[bunklocoempire]

And if everyone acted as to be responsible for their own safety and that of others, any active shooter would have nearly all of his potential targets shooting back at him and neutralizing the threat to life.

The chimps got it figured out. Why so difficult for humans? That leopard ain't gonna change his nature.

EDIT: Notice how they exist with no chimp police state or "anarchy".



Disclaimer: My ancestors were not chimps.

[DamianTV]

I was mostly theorizing in my posts above. Like I said, I changed my position. Guns are a great tool for self-defense. However their sole purpose is to kill, therefore I think adequate training should be necessary.

I don't see why people have such a problem with that. Restrictions are needed in life, otherwise we'd have anarchy.

You can NOT convert a Right into a Permission without giving unlimited power to the small group of people who Grant Permission. Beyond that, it is all about personal responsibility.

[pessimist]

And if everyone acted as to be responsible for their own safety and that of others, any active shooter would have nearly all of his potential targets shooting back at him and neutralizing the threat to life.

Great post. This is exactly where I think this topic needs to go to take it into a more multilayered discussion.

Now you're basically saying that if everyone was armed, they'd all be shooting back. See, I disagree with this. For one, I think the natural human reaction is to duck for cover and run at the sound of gun shots. Self-preservation instincts would completely take over.

Remember, heroes are considered heroes because acts of bravery are so rare.

Secondly, a scenario of untrained, panic-riddled civilians whipping out guns and firing away in a public environment sounds like a nightmare scenario to me. This is one of the many reasons why I think gun owners should be required training.

[alucard13mm]

Protecting women? What makes women more precious than men?