The goal is to stop GUN VIOLENCE not GUN CONTROL

Gun Control will do nothing to stop Gun Violence in this Country. The Government can't "control" guns no more than they can "control" illegal drugs or prostitution. It's like the Govt. saying we're going to have car "control."

There's people who drive without a license.

In Florida, a state with about 15.5 million legal drivers, 2.2 million people currently have suspended or revoked licenses, authorities say.

Many get on the road, anyway.

Nationally, about 1 in 10 motorists drives illegally, says traffic researcher Robert Scopatz of Data Nexus Inc., who studied the issue for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

www.tampabay.com...

You would still have car fatalities and drunk driving.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 32,885 people died in traffic crashes in 2010 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 10,228 people who died in drunk driving crashes, accounting for 31% of all traffic deaths last year.

Since NHTSA began recording alcohol-related statistics in 1982, drunk driving fatalities have decreased 52% from 21,113 in 1982. Since the inception of The Century Council and our national efforts to fight drunk driving, drunk driving fatalities have declined 35% from 15,827 in 1991. (Source: NHTSA/FARS, 2011)

www.centurycouncil.org...

See, they went after drunk driving and helped they didn't do car control. They didn't ban certain cars to reduce the instances of drunk driving.

The Century Council is a leader in the fight against drunk driving and underage drinking and promotes responsible decision making regarding beverage alcohol.

Founded in 1991 and funded by distillers, we are a national, independent, not-for-profit organization headquartered in Arlington, Virginia.

www.centurycouncil.org...

Gun Control isn't about reducing gun violence. It's about going after the 2nd Amendment and taking guns away from law abiding citizens. Progressives don't like the Constitution. This is why when people talk about the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution they're seen as Neanderthals or called knuckle draggers.

In a 2001 interview Obama said the Constitution was fundamentally flawed because it restrains Govt. and it doesn't talk about the redistribution of wealth. He said the Constitution was a charter of negative liberties. He said it talks about what Govt. can't do to you and not what Govt. MUST do on your behalf.

These things go against the Constitution and everything America stands for. The whole idea behind the Constitution and the Declaration was to restrain Govt. The Founders saw Govt. as a necessary evil that needed to be restrained and more liberty needed to be given to the individual. Obama is all about "Collective Salvation." So of course he's concerned about what Govt. MUST do.

THE ONLY THING GOVT. MUST DO IS PROTECT THE GOD GIVEN RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL.

The reason the Founders didn't talk about what Govt. MUST do on your behalf is because they felt that was best left to the individuals own conscious and not some Politician because the Govt. is the people not some separate entity that MUST do all of these things on your behalf. The more things Govt. MUST do the less liberty we will have.

How do you reduce gun violence? The same way they reduced drunk driving. You go after the places where guns are most destructive. Gangs, criminals and the mentally disturbed. You don't do this by taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Most of the things they're looking at have nothing to do with stopping gun violence.

If the President was a leader, he would go to the Republicans, the NRA and Gun manufacturers and ask them to fund a private, not for profit company that will look at ways to reduce gun violence in America. This not for profit will also have a National Advisory Board made up of some in Govt. that will also make recommendations. Here's more on Century Council.

The Century Council is a leader in the fight against drunk driving and underage drinking and promotes responsible decision making regarding beverage alcohol.

Founded in 1991 and funded by distillers, we are a national, independent, not-for-profit organization headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. An independent National Advisory Board comprised of distinguished leaders in education, medicine, government, business, and other relevant disciplines assists us in the development of programs and policies.

We believe that collective action brings about lasting change. We work with all members of the community – law enforcement, public officials, educators, parents, and students – in our fight against drunk driving and underage drinking.

THE GOAL SHOULD BE TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE NOT GRANDSTANDING POLITICIANS PUSHING THE POLITICAL AGENDA OF GUN CONTROL!

reply to post by neoholographic

THE GOAL SHOULD BE TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE NOT GRANDSTANDING POLITICIANS PUSHING THE POLITICAL AGENDA OF GUN CONTROL!

That is the goal, and the proposed measures all work towards that goal, not taking guns away from you.

Lets use your example to prove you wrong.

firstly, when you buy a car, you need a valid drivers license. In my country, you also need proof of insurance, I'm not sure how that works in the US.

To get that license, you have to pass a written test, and a driving test. Showing, not just your ability to actually control the vehicle, but your ability to be responsible behind the wheel. The written test has nothing to do with driving, it's more about responsibility.

you do something you shouldn't, you lose your license. You get caught driving without one, it's a crime. This whole time, the government knows what car you have.

Limiting mag sizes to 7 rounds instead of 10, classifying certain long arm rifles as assault weapons, and other similar proposals won't stop criminals from being criminals.

BUT it will add another layer, as well as changing certain purchasing loop holes. Most guns used to commit crimes came from the black market. How did they get their? They were stolen from people just like you. gun control, or whatever you want to call it, will not stop those people from killing you if they so wish.

But an added layer of security, and some restrictions on certain things, will indeed help keep semiautomatic rifles out of the hands of depressed kids on medication.

Honestly, I don't care about your perceived right to have a gun, my right to not be shot to death because some kid had a bad day at school trumps your right to have a chain gun without anyone knowing about it.

Think about this for a second. Half of the people so adamantly against gun control are themselves threatening gun violence should gun control laws be passed. Think about that, and tell me who is trying to reduce gun violence.

At least your government is finally at a stage where they are at least willing to admit there is a problem.

If some of the proposed measures were put in place 10 years ago, I don't think some of the recent mass shootings would have played out the same.

There is no single solution, but doing nothing isn't an option.

Why do you need an assault weapon to protect your home? A semi-auto isn't enough? A 12 gauge isn't enough? A hand gun with a clip size of upwards of 20 rounds isn't enough?

Until you guys are willing to admit no one is trying to take your guns, this is all a waste of space, no one has even suggested that they come and take your guns (no one that matters) beyond the fact that it's physically and fiscally impossible, it was never intended to be a gun confiscation.

Beyond that.... do you really think your civilian weapons will protect you from the military?

Lol, stop violence, it more like liberty control to me. They want to control your liberty by taking your only defence weapon against a tyrannical government.

reply to post by neoholographic

If the President was a leader, he would go to the Republicans, the NRA and Gun manufacturers and ask them to fund a private, not for profit company that will look at ways to reduce gun violence in America. This not for profit will also have a National Advisory Board made up of some in Govt. that will also make recommendations. Here's more on Century Council.

Are you seriously suggesting we should trust corporations (gun manufacturers) to have the public's best interest at heart?

Might as well ask Monsanto to create an organization to improve GMO safety.

Worst idea I've ever heard in my life...

Thank god you aren't president.

As a whole, I'm in agreement with you. S&F.

Except for...

Gangs, criminals and the mentally disturbed.

If you ask big brother, we are ALL "mentally disturbed". Therefore, we are all unfit gun owners. Seriously, who decides what "mentally disturbed" means?

Does it mean my wife and I got into an argument, and my neighbor called the police because we got too loud?
Does it mean I swatted my kids butt once for misbehaving?
Does it mean I have a serious illness that has caused depression, and I've taken some anti-depressants?
Does it mean I have a history of violence because I got arrested once for punching some guy in the nose?
Or does it mean I still have bad dreams from seeing my buddies get blown to bits in front of me in Iraq?

Anything can be used to qualify you for "mentally disturbed".

The trick is to make crimes committed with guns undesirable. You do this by making it a better chance than not the criminal is going to die by the hands of his potential victims. These dirtbags don't go to places where the average person has a gun handy. They go to places they know are devoid of them, and they can shoot themselves afterward.

Lets give them their death wish before they take several people with them. Not after.

How can you improve mental healthcare when we have a for profit only healthcare system?

Psychologists are not trying to see you if they can't get paid. And if you have crappy insurance the co-pay is too much for a lot of people. Then prescription medication costs...on and on......

Say Adam Lanza lived with his mother, I'm going to assume she was middle class, he would not have qualified for medicaid. It goes by household income, not idividual. And even then, medicaid does not cover everything and has co-pays itself.

Not even all low-income people qualify for medicaid.

The same people going on about guns are the same people that are against a real public healthcare option.

Your mentalities do not mix.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


It's obvious your not from here because you don't understand this country.

First, we do have a 2nd Amendment whether you or anyone likes it or not. Again, the goal is to reduce gun violence and not gun control. Gun Control is just a Progressive pipe dream because they have always seen the Constitution as a threat. Statist think the State should be all powerful and the Constitution takes power away from the State and puts it in the hands of individuals. This is why Obama called it a charter of negative liberties and he talked about what Govt. MUST do on your behalf.

You missed the entire analogy about cars and went straight to the liberal, gun control advocates.

WHY I NEED THESE GUNS IS NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS!

The problem with stopping a mentally disturbed individual has nothing to due with Gun Control and everything to do with reducing gun violence.

The analogy with cars showed that Govt. can't control these things. So reducing drunk driving didn't come about through controlling the cars we drive. You still have people driving without a license and you still have drunk driving deaths.

This goes back to the fact that the Govt. can't "control" illegal drugs or prostitution. The fact is we have a second amendment and sadly, this is a violent nation. If you lived here, maybe you would understand this.

So taking guns away from me will do nothing to curb gun violence. You will just arm the criminals with even more black market weapons and disarm law abiding citizens.

If you're a criminal, you just need a map of gun free zones and you could go on a robbing spree.

Reducing gun violence should be the goal not the Progressive agenda of Gun Control because they don't like the Constitution.

Yes, you can teach people not to drink and drive, but you can't stop it, unless you completly ban all cars, and they don't do that do they?

What do they do then? Well they secure the car, seatbelts, airbags, better crumble zones, stronger chassis, speed limits and the police to keep an eye on you.

You can't stop people from dying in car accidents, drunk driver or accidents, but you can limit the deaths a small amount by doing the above.

The same thing goes for guns, they don't try to stop it completly, they try to limit the deaths in small amounts by limiting some factors.

You can still get your guns, and still shoot wooden logs and bottles, protect your home or whatever.

Why? Cause they are not banning guns, just regulating it a bit, which in the long run might save 10 out of 20 children killed, and 10 kids out of 20 saved is better than 20 kids killed.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by neoholographic

 

If the President was a leader, he would go to the Republicans, the NRA and Gun manufacturers and ask them to fund a private, not for profit company that will look at ways to reduce gun violence in America. This not for profit will also have a National Advisory Board made up of some in Govt. that will also make recommendations. Here's more on Century Council.

Are you seriously suggesting we should trust corporations (gun manufacturers) to have the public's best interest at heart?

Might as well ask Monsanto to create an organization to improve GMO safety.

Worst idea I've ever heard in my life...

Thank god you aren't president.

edit on 17-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)

It worked with drunk driving.

Distillers funded the Century Council that helped reduce drunk driving. Everyone that owns a business isn't evil. That's just a silly, liberal talking point.

reply to post by neoholographic

Statists think the State should be all powerful and the Constitution takes power away from the State and puts it in the hands of individuals. T

The constitution is a statist document. Could you get anymore ironic?

Beyond that.... do you really think your civilian weapons will protect you from the military?

After speaking to quite a few ex and active members of our military, I think they will back us. We are also seeing more examples of law enforcement upholding the rights of the citizen against an ever encroaching government. All in all, I say We The People would stand a decent chance. I also think we need to take a damn careful look at who we vote for and their record of upholding the Constitution. If they don't...Vote Them Out.

i don't know if they are honestly trying to remove guns for nefarious purposes, it could be just your typical political stupidity.

it's right on par for a politician to "prove" they are doing something to combat a problem. target the easy or easily identifiable issue and they can say "see we ARE doing something for the public good, aren't we great". while actually accomplishing absolutely nothing, but it makes them look good. while at the same time being totally oblivious to the REAL problems that cause the issue. when the problem persists they will just try to ban yet more things that yet again will have no effect on what happens. it's like putting a band-aid on an arterial bleed then added more and more band-aids when the flow does not stop, while being confused about WHY it hasn't stopped. i mean they did put a band-aid on it didn't they? it should have worked, why isn't it working?

i see gun control as a do nothing measure. it will keep guns, or selective guns out of the hands of people who would mostly never misuse them in the first place, while at the same time creating a profitable "black market" for criminals and those who don't care or don't worry about "silly laws" in the first place. also just like the "war on drugs" and prohibition just creating a cash cow for the criminal element thus actually CREATING MORE CRIME. :shk: while doing nothing at all to solve the actual problem.

i grew up in an area that had fairly strict gun control. it is very hard to own a handgun at all, yet there are still plenty of people getting shot with ILLEGAL handguns all the time, net effect of the gun control is zilch. gunfire is heard all the time. we have still had people shoot up malls. people are still killed by stray bullets. but i guess people want to believe that something so simple as outlawing them will have an effect. maybe it makes them sleep better at night but in reality it is much like a "placebo effect" feeling better based on a perception rather than a reality. in a lot of ways i feel sorry for people that are so gullible to think that by making guns harder to get and making some illegal that it will cause all the misery to just go away. we should all feel sorry for such weak minded people they probably also believe a big fat man jumps down chimney to leave presents and that a a fairy buys old fallen out teeth. maybe some of them would like to buy some snake oil? it cures all ills, guaranteed to be just as effective as gun control at stopping mass shootings and innocents killed by guns.

reply to post by neoholographic


Wow you totally fell for it. They changed terminology to demonize people who were against gun control. Now they can label those who oppose gun control measures as people who support or are encouraging "gun violence".

Wake up.

Originally posted by camaro68ss
Lol, stop violence, it more like liberty control to me. They want to control your liberty by taking your only defence weapon against a tyrannical government.

edit on 17-1-2013 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

Let's be honest here. If the government really wants to come and disarm anyone, there is no amount of weapons that will allow you to defeat them. Resist long enough and they will just blow away your house with you in it. Or there will be a shoot it out, until you die. If the government comes to take your guns there will be no stopping them. Period. You may be able to stop some of them, but ultimately it will be the end of all your freedoms because you will be dead.

How many people have shot it up with government and then were just able to live their normal lives? None!

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical


Are you crazy? A few thousand armed citizens in Iraq almost brought the US military to it's knees.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical

 

Are you crazy? A few thousand armed citizens in Iraq almost brought the US military to it's knees.

Exactly.

What happened to the Soviet Union when they tried to invade Afghanistan?

It's crazy to think people are defenseless against Govt. The attitude of these people is sickening.

The figures show that there have been 16,808,538 applications in 2012 so far to the end of November. If they were approved, that would be enough weapons to stock a member of Nato's armed forces nearly five times over. The system has received 156,577,260 applications since 1998 and the US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world.

Americans are ready to fight tyrants if they need to. Again any talk of gun "control" is silly. It's about reducing gun violence. The Govt. will not "control" gun just like they don't control illegal drugs or Prostitution.

There's plenty of ways to kill a person, or a group of persons. You don't necessarily have to kill them, either. There are fates worse than death. Being immolated, or burned by acid, to name a few. Ever see the beginning of the movie Swordfish? What happens when there are no guns? Well, then we'll probably get more news of explosions killing people. Homemade napalm, people getting doused in gasoline and lit up, vitriol attacks, you name it. The root of the problem isn't the guns, it's the nut jobs pulling the triggers. But government is lazy, and likes to take the easy way out. It's too much work to get to the real root of the problem, and the light is seldom shone in its direction.

reply to post by MrUncreated


Exactly,

The root of the problem isn't guns it's the nuts who use them in a destructive way. So you could reduce gun violence the same way we reduced drunk driving. Not by banning cars but a mixture of people working together from the private sector with some national help.

Gun control has never been about reducing gun violence. It's always been about progressives going after the second amendment. Govt. will not "control" guns just like they don't control illegal drugs or prostitution.

Obama surrounded himself with kids yet he's killing kids with these drone strikes. Just imagine if another country was flying drones over America and killing civilians which include men, women and children.

I realized it's useless to debate this with some people. My mom voted Obama for both terms. She lives in a world where our government would never do us any harm. She lives in a world where Obama had those kids up on stage and read their letters because he was genuinely touched by them, and all he wanted to do was let those baby's voices be heard. You see in her world, America is immune from tyranny and dictators. In her world the government loves us like children and protects us.

When I challenge her ideas she gets scared and upset. She'll talk about how our country has fail safes to protect us from tyranny, but when I mention that the 2nd amendment is the most important of these, she refuses to hear. She's unable to cope with the fact that the world we live in might be more dangerous than she's always believed. She refuses to acknowledge that the wars she's seen on t.v since the 60's could one day be fought on our own country's soil. It scares her so much that she shuts down and refuses reason.

It makes me sad for her. For her and for my children's sake I wish that the world was how she pictures it, but it's just not that way. I honestly hope that she never has to find that out.

reply to post by neoholographic


your statement that... "progressives don't like the constitution"... is a lie...if you have to lie to make your point, then your whole arguement goes down the toilet, and this is why most people simply shut you out,. and don't take you seriously. talk about denying ignorance.........