Jack Wilson

as long as people like Obama exist....yeah we sure do.....

lol it happens a hundred times at least a year. Actually, it just happened!

It never gets reported in the national libtard news outlets. Hench fueling the idea. 😉

No, they're heroes because they chose to step into the line of fire and be the one to either get dropped by the bad guy or drop the bad guy while the rest go about their daily routine. The fact you can't understand this shows your lack of knowledge on gun issues and the 2nd amendment.

So you believe the bad guy will just give up his gun, huh? There's a reason these killers pick "easy targets" like schools and churches.

"No, he won’t give it up — we have to take it from him! That’s gun control!"

So basically you're proposing we go door to door and take the guns ... how communist of you.

"But as you and others here are proving, from a cultural standpoint, we have a serious infatuation with guns that is killing us. Literally."

No, we do not. We have a desire to be able to protect our families and ourselves and properties from those who try and take it from us who do not have the right to do so. We have the desire to be able to match fire power with fire power. Your ignorant argument that "Americans have an infatuation with guns" is absurd and disingenuous.

"Step away from the gun and the intoxicating aura of power, safety, and control. It’s a lie.
Studies have shown that owning a gun makes you less safe."

No, they do not. Manipulated stats are lies meant to dupe ignoramuses en masse.

"You could shoot yourself or someone else accidentally, or put a bullet through your own head in a brief moment of despair, or your kids could get ahold of it and start playing."

If you're stupid enough to "accidentally" shoot yourself or someone else, you don't deserve a gun. I'm guessing by this ignorant blanket statement you think the vast majority of Americans are inbred retards who go around shooting themselves and others by accident or just because they're misusing their weapon? And my child knows how to shoot a gun and everything she needs to know about gun safety. And she's 8 years old.

"The gun-free zones you talk about, unless rigorously enforced by security like courthouses and airports, are empty gestures in a society awash with them."

Either you aren't an American citizen or you are truly ignorant to how these things work.

Not all laws are fair but we have to abide by them to live in the good ol' US of A, am I right?

Japan is not a “communist” country and it has virtually no gun crime. Neither are these other countries.

Americans aren’t stupid. They are just human. And humans with access to guns tend to shoot them for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes at each other. Sometimes at themselves.

But don’t take my word for it, just check the statistics. I’ve posted similar charts here several times but here it is again.

The simple fact is more people die of guns in America than in any other comparably rich and well-governed nation.

So what's solution? Let me guess, take everyone's guns away?

I dont think you are taking in account that other country's values and social norms are not interchangeable in most cases (what works for Japanese citizens will probably not work for Americans).

I do agree with you on the poverty issue. However I think liberal mayors and governors are mostly to blame for running cities into the ground and keeping the poor reliant on socialized programs and crime.

40,000 huh? Including suicides there????

Great job arguing the case in the face of an incident where being armed saved lives.

London banned guns and violent crime went up.

Hammers kill more than AR-15's.

Uhh, yeah, not all all.

These d/v'ed comments. Can't you lefties post something decent so you don't get d/v'ed to shit? I've seen it before.

Hahaha you don't know about British liberals...

Anyway, everyone that survived that church shooting thinks you're an asshole. Just sayin'!

70% of that is gang violence. I feel bad about the innocents but cry me a river over thugs killing each other.

How can the slain 14,000 even think? They're dead, remember?
Don't worry though, #Demonrats will make sure they can still vote.

Gang bangers gonna gang bang!

Are you going to personally remove 250 million guns? Give it a shot ;)

Armed civilians just prevented a would be mass murderer from mass murdering, yet you say it's a bad argument? Hmmm.

Yes, BECAUSE they didn't have 250 million guns. All you want to do is disarm the innocent law abiders.

Gee, because their 2nd amendment right is being shat on?

I have no problem with improvements to increase safety, but your way is a dead end. Reality matters. Chicago has stringent gun laws. How's that working out?

"Australia's gun-buyback program was a success."

Of course it was, because it accomplished the desired goal. Grab all the guns from all the people who use them for everything but murder and control the unarmed populace. Complete success.

A crap argument? But I used emotion.Like with most lib arguments :)

TYPICAL LEFTIST PASSIVE AGGRESSION ALERT

Let me guess. You posted that meme in your cringe stream.

Of course.

Thanks for conceeding my point with your first sentence.

I dunno about you, but if I was a criminal I'd be 1000 times more excited to rob an unarmed house than an armed one.

Hey, even white people are in gangs, you whiny typical lib. Every time with you lefties.CLASSIC LIBTARD MOVE!

Thugs are now a protected class BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Hahahaha now any criticism of gang violence is rayyyyyyccccisssssssss hahahaha pathetic.

Yeah, whatever. Just another lefty tactic to control conversation.

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) - The Court stated in part:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

This ruling was about whether sawn off shotguns were covered under the 2nd Amendment - it was ruled that they were not. However, the ruling also brings up that the second amendment was intended to allow the "militia" which "compromised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" to appear bearing arms "supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Assault weapons ARE of the kind in common use as of today, and are a part of ordinary military equipment.

And as to the usual argument people like you bring up about the militia..

10 U.S. Code § 246.Militia: composition and classes

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The D.C. v. Heller right to own handguns in self-defense and the "well-regulated militia" language are distinct aspects of the 2nd Amendment in my book.

A truly "well-regulated militia" under the 2nd Amendment could in theory allow citizens to own higher firepower types of firearms, perhaps even assault weapons. If we ever really had to mobilize a militia force, these types of weapons would be more useful in a war context than handguns.

A fundamental right to own a handgun for self-defense purposes (available equally to men and women) in a civilian context doesn't necessarily imply that you also have to submit to training, marching, drilling, etc.

Honestly, if I had my druthers, I would prefer to overturn D.C. v. Heller the same way many conservatives want to overturn Roe v. Wade. However, I recognize the state of the law on the Second Amendment as it currently exists. That doesn't mean I have to celebrate the fact that thousands are slaughtered or kill themselves using handguns every year.

But the types of gun control measures sometimes proposed by Democrats (more rigorous background checks, voluntary assault weapon buybacks, etc.) simply don't violate Supreme Court precedent and therefore don't violate the 2nd Amendment as we currently understand it.

You can't pick and choose. The law is clear, and just because YOU currently want to understand the precedent in a certain way doesn't make that reality. The supreme court NEVER has ruled on a 2nd amendment related case in a way that implies they OR the founders believed that "well-regulated militia" was an entirely separate aspect from the rulings in favor of gun ownership. The entire of-age civilian populace is "the militia" and "the militia" is expected to self-provide weapons of the type in common use at the time. Period. You can't claim to support the constitution when something is politically convenient to you(like impeachment) then try to ignore entire aspects of it that you find politically inconvenient, ESPECIALLY when the supreme court has ALREADY ruled on it in multiple instances. That doesn't fly, sorry.

Is this class of 17+ year old able-bodied men “well-regulated”? Is it regulated at all?

Does the government take steps to ensure all 17+ year old men know how to shoot guns, care for guns, properly store guns, take commands, march in formation, survive in the wilderness, and the other tasks a mobilized militiaman would be expected to perform?

It's been ruled on by the supreme court, it is CLEAR that their intent was to declare that all able-bodied citizens are a part of the militia and therefore have the right to bear arms. Good luck arguing otherwise, you're going to get nowhere. This argument is over and done with and has been for around eighty years. That you try to delude yourself into thinking it isn't doesn't change reality.

Even your post above about Supreme Court v. Heller shows how wrong you are. They ruled that the second amendment allowed citizens to own handguns for self defense. You claimed that they never specified other types of weapons, however, they DID specify in another ruling "supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time". You can't claim that the second amendment allows citizen ownership of handguns then in another post just hours later claim that the second amendment only applies to those in a "well-regulated" militia.

"The 40,000 figure includes suicides by gun. Why should we exclude them, exactly? People do not substitute other methods of suicide at a perfect 1:1 rate. Owning a gun makes it disturbingly easy to impulsively kill yourself in a moment of despair."

Because if someone has their mind set on suicide, they'll commit suicide regardless if they have a gun or not. There are dozens of other ways to kill yourself.

Suicidal ideation is a complicated subject. Suicidal plans aren't as deeply ingrained or well thought-out as we'd think.

Here's an article with links to further research about the role that impulsive thinking plays in suicide, and what it means for gun control.

https://www.vox.com/2015/7/30/9068255/suicide-impulsive-gun-control

Take away a gun from a suicidal person and you don't solve the real problem, which wasn't the gun in the first place. Your hatred for the 2nd amendment is an emotional reaction, just as it is for the rest of the left's hatred.

You need to remove suicides, justifiable homicides, self defense, law enforcement, and gang violence, then we can talk numbers. Compare the number you get with the number of uses where guns save lives and you'll see saving lives outnumbers deaths by quite a bit.

"suicides"
As I mentioned above, people do not substitute other forms of suicide at a perfect 1:1 rate. Research is showing that suicide is a disturbingly impulsive decision, rarely one arrived after careful deliberation. A gun makes it remarkably easy to act on that impulse, and a bullet to the head is relatively pain-free compared to other options. I am not persuaded we should exclude gun-related suicides. (You could adjust this figure down by some fraction for the highly-motivated suicidal people who would choose suicide by another method.)

"justifiable homicides, self defense, law enforcement"
Does not make sense to exclude, however. Why do we shoot people in self-defense? Why is the gentleman in the OP meme being hailed as a hero? Why are officers shooting people? The vast majority of the time: Because someone else has, or might have, a gun. Take away the guns, and most of the time you remove the need to shoot others in self-defense.

"gang violence"
Absolutely not. These are intentional homicides. Do black lives not matter?

EVEN IF you subtract all of those things and take away 70% of the 14,000 gun-murders-per-year for "gang violence," you're still left with 4,200 gun murders. That still overwhelms Sydney's 100 good-guys-per-year figure, and is not at all "saving lives outnumbers deaths by quite a bit."

Ball's in your court now.

I just threw 100 out there. The reality is it's more.

https://fee.org/articles/13-times-in-february-armed-citizens-intervened-to-stop-crimes/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/collection/good-guy-gun-stopped-bad-guy-gun/

https://americangunfacts.com/

A recent example:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50952443

How many people die in hospitals by infections a year?

You'd rather no one survive criminal attacks, I suppose. Where would you feel safer? A small open carry Texas town or gun 'free' zones like Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit etc.

Here's where you once again deflect to rayyyyyyccccisssssssssm.

"Good Guy with a Gun" is hamstrung by laws prohibiting carrying arms into certain establishments--because they are law-abiding even when the law works against them.
The bad guy with a gun sees a gun-free (aka sitting-duck) zone and feels free to shoot at will because the law-abiding good guys with guns left their guns in the car.

"What we have to do is remove -- really remove -- the guns from society...". How do you propose to do that in America without bloodshed?
Anti-gun = pro-rape
Anti-gun = misogyny/misanthropy
Anti-gun = pro-slavery
Anti-gun = pro-tyranny

and 98% of them are "repeat offenders"