Avatar_feed
Responses: 8
1SG Dennis Hicks
8
8
0
There are no real sides as this is really not an issue, the constitution was put in place for a very good reason. You have folks who are emotionally invested in their argument and want to hear nothing else. The second amendment isn't up for debate and some people are to thick to realize this. They want instant gratification by restricting tre rights of honest law abiding citizens by using nice sounding phrases like "Common Sense Gun Control" which as usual will do nothing for the criminals that are committing these crimes, but they do get to feel like they "DID SOMETHING". There is no compromise as there shouldn't be because it always starts out with one side compromising then being told to do it again and again. They somehow think that gun violence will magically go away with their emotional good intentions, sorry never will stop as long as the elephant t in the room is not addressed. As long as we punish those who follow the law and do nothing to those that break it we will always have problems, you cant stop crime by punishing the law abiding for the actions of criminals. The very fact that we have courts, and prisons show you that laws don't stop criminals, they do what they want and rinse and repeat after they make bail or get cut loose after a slap on the hand.
(8)
Comment
(0)
Avatar_small
LTC Program Manager
3
3
0
All gun laws are victimless crimes. Every gun law punishes an individual who hurt no one.
(3)
Comment
(0)
CW3 Harvey Keck
CW3 Harvey Keck
2 y
Agreed -- other than laws ("malum in se") which increase penalties for the use of a gun in a crime, e.g. armed robbery with a gun is punished more severely than that committed with a club or knife.
It would appear we are all considered criminals, and are the victims of "malum prohibitum" gun laws.
“Laws that criminalize conduct not wrong in itself [malum prohibitum] to prevent crime before it occurs make the behavior of criminals [or psychos] the measure of the rights and scope of liberty that the law will permit to the innocent. [e.g. 'Assault weapons [sic] are dangerous in the hands of criminals, therefore, no one shall have them'].
Such laws tell the law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the lawless. That the law will permit the innocent to have only such rights and liberties as criminals will allow.” --- Jeff Snyder
(1)
Reply
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
MSgt Steve Sweeney
2 y
CW3 Harvey Keck - Would that apply equally to drug laws?
(0)
Reply
(0)
LTC Program Manager
LTC (Join to see)
2 y
Not to answer for him but yes
(1)
Reply
(0)
CW3 Harvey Keck
CW3 Harvey Keck
2 y
MSgt Steve Sweeney - The good Major's "yes" is hereby endorsed. Over time, I have come to a Libertarian view of drug usage. If people are stupid enough to destroy their lives by drugs, they are free to do so.
Skeptic that I am, I find it more than co-incidental that drugs were not outlawed -- other than social scorning, until after Repeal of Prohibition. It appears to be a compensation to organized crime by government for the loss of the "cash cow" of bootlegging.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
CW3 Harvey Keck
3
3
0
Edited 2 y ago
They use statistics the way a drunk uses a lamppost -- for support, not for illumination.
There was a presentation of "statistical findings" on guns by CNN.
I've got a few observations to make on CNN's presentation of their data.

After yielding the fact that “59.5% of gun deaths are suicides”, the 38.4% of gun deaths reported as “homicides” lumps together “murders”, “justifiable homicides” e.g. self-defense, and accidental shootings make up the missing 2.1%.

13.1% of active shooter incidents end when UNARMED citizens “safely and successfully restrained the shooter” ---- but they do not report how many were killed or wounded in such unarmed attempts. The father of Suzanna Hupp comes to mind. He was shot dead in his unarmed attempt to stop the killer in the Luby's mass-murder. How many others are there?

“Seven in 10 active shootings are in schools, businesses” ---- but they do not mention that virtually ALL those “active shootings” are in “gun free zones”, either by virtue of law or propriator sign-posting.

3.1% of the incidents were ended when “Armed citizens exchanged gunfire with the shooters”.

Since the overwhelming number of such incidents are in “gun free zones”, it is remarkable that armed citizens could be permitted to be ANY factor at all in stopping such a mass-murder.

It is also difficult to figure out what is meant by “exchanged gunfire”----- citizen and killer shooting at one another, or just the citizen shooting the killer. This also ignores at least one incident, a mall shooting ended when an off-duty security guard at the “gun free” mall was armed, and scared off the killer by pointing his gun at him. No “exchange of gunfire” in that case.
(3)
Comment
(0)
SSG Squad Leader
SSG (Join to see)
2 y
then go into the 38.4% take out the gang, justifiable and self-defense and what do you have? Not much.
(2)
Reply
(0)
CW3 Harvey Keck
CW3 Harvey Keck
2 y
SSG (Join to see) - Agreed. When you take out gangbangers killing one another over "turf", and business disputes between competing pimps and drug dealers, and the sensitivities of thugs who feel "dissed", there isn't much murder left.
According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting records, there has been a long downtrend in violent crime, including a 51 year low in the murder rate in 2014.
That drop in crime was not disrupted by the concurrent astronomical increase in guns "in civilian hands" for nearly a decade now, to ~330,000,000. Neither has it been in any way negated by the now >16,000,000 CCWs issued in the USA. Nor was it disrupted by the easing of state gun laws (13 states now have "constitutional carry") which also has been concurrent with that drop in crime.
While it is true that "Correlation does not imply causation", the continuing drop in the crime rate while the number of guns in circulation has increased to such a degree, gives the lie to the simple-minded assertion "More guns means more gun crime/violence/death. It's simple math."
(2)
Reply
(0)
SGT Chris Wagoner
SGT Chris Wagoner
2 y
So given the choice of being unarmed or armed, and having that one chance to defend yourself vs. not, which do you want?
(2)
Reply
(0)
CW3 Harvey Keck
CW3 Harvey Keck
2 y
SGT Chris Wagoner - The answer is obvious to anyone whose IQ is greater than his hat size, unless he is a dedicated pacifist.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close
Seg?add=7750261&t=2