Please study our history, including the Declaration of Independence and our
Constitution, including the fact that our rights guaranteed by the Constitution
are unalienable. As a reminder, please note that PRIVILEGES bestowed by
government (drivers licenses, etc.) are subject to being taken-away by the
grantor government, whereas our God given RIGHTS are UNALIENABLE.
No way I want the USA to be like New Zealand. Not interested. I'll not
say if I have guns or not but it is none of your business. Mine alone.
An unarmed person is a slave. I will not be. They can have my gun when they peel
my fingers off it.
"In order for the U.S. to reach a consensus on gun policy, Americans will
need to let go of the 'conviction that guns have something to do with
freedom.'" I for one, am not going to let go of that conviction since
guns do have to do with freedom. The truth is that without the private
ownership of guns in 1776 we probably wouldn't exist as a free nation. The
founders recognized this fact and as well as the fact that continuation of
private gun ownership was essential to the preservation of that freedom. Our
nation is founded on the radical idea that government derives its power from the
People, not the other way around. If the People do not have the ultimate
physical means of keeping that government in check and preserving their freedom,
even by force if necessary, then the notion of the People being the ultimate
source of government power is meaningless rhetoric. Abuse of power by
government is more to be feared than abuse of power by private citizens.
History has shown that the greatest perpetrators of gun violence against private
citizens are governments against their own unarmed people.
I like every other sane individual is sickened by the Mass shootings that have
happened, and all of them by unstable individuals with some sort of Mental
issues going on. I fail to understand though how anyone thinks that taking my
guns away from me will make them safer. I had a break in to my home thirty five
years ago while I was working swing shift a fellow broke in on my wife with a
gun, my son 5 at the time woke up and entered the room he was at, for some
reason that rattled him some what and he exited the house, my wife in that
moment got the doors barracaded shut and got my Rifle, he had cut the phone
lines so no call could be made. A few minutes later he tried to return and get
back in. My wife yelled through the door for him to leave or she would shoot, he
left. I have often wondered what I might have found if she didn't have
that Rifle when I got home that evening. You bet I have conceal carry and semi
automatic rifles with large magazines and I know how they should be used and how
to use them properly and that is for the protection of my home and family, and
no Politician has the right to take that protection away from me.
@Brave Sir Robin - San Diego, CAIts a people problem not a gun
I assume the headline here means to ask merely a rhetorical question, as the
answer is clear: we need to re-think the Second Amendment and craft some
carefully written exceptions into the "right" to keep and bear arms.
Oh and one more thing. The Vegas shooter, no one saw him coming and
there was no indication that he had flipped his lid.What would
people be saying if he had perhaps, parked a U-Haul full of Diesel and Ammonium
Nitrate by the venue, or thrown a few pipe bombs into the crowd? People would
have been just as hurt and just as dead in that scenario.As I said
before, it is the people that are the problem.I have a few firearms.
I lock them up in my very expensive Liberty gun safe. Same with the ammo. Two
people have the combination. Me and my wife. Even my adult kids don't
have it.Safety first.The problem with this whole argument is
that people have Agency. Agency to do as they will. Sometimes using that
Agency in a negative manner causes hurt, pain and sometimes death. It happens
in all walks of life. I remember specifically three airplanes on that really
bad day in September where some evil men exercised that agency to kill and
destroy.It is the fault of the people.
To "Brave Sir Robin" actually, guns do have more than one purpose. Guns
are designed for shooting paper targets, some clay pigeons, and other non-living
targets. Some are designed to just make a really loud noise and not actually
fire a projectile.To "casual observer " that was done in the
1980s. It is next to impossible for civilians to purchase legal military
Nothing in this article, other than background checks, say nothing about the
perpetrators of these heinous crimes.The guns are not the problem,
the people that misuse them are the problem.Sandy Hook was not
caused by a gun or guns. It was caused by a crazy, deranged, totally off his
rocker individual that broke into a locked closet, took his mom's guns,
killed his mom and then went and perpetrated this crime.We
shouldn't be talking about a Bushmaster AR-15, we should be talking about
Adam Lanza and how to prevent someone like him from doing it again.
The United States of America is not Nigeria, not China, and not New Zealand.
Is it human life that we are concerned about? I'm sorry for the lose of
life from these crazy people in these mass killings. But, why are we so enraged
over this lose of life when there are SO many things that are much more
horrific. In this ole US of A alcohol kills 90,000 annually, tobacco kills
almost half a million, and abortion takes the chance of life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness from more than 600,000 innocent infants each and every
year. Where is the outrage?
I enjoy sewing and quilting. I'm a grandma, mom, and teacher. I like to go
mountain biking and ride a motorcycle. I also enjoy shooting various guns. Why
do so many people equate gun ownership with having a "fetish" or
obsession? Because of the expense, I mostly shoot/practice with my
.22 handgun and .22 rifle. My favorite gun to shoot is the AR 15. We shoot an AR
pistol (don't like it as much) and rifle (easier to handle). We practice
positive gun etiquette, and all safety laws. I have a conceal/carry permit. I
cannot, and do not, use it while in CA, where I live part time. I use it only
when legal. I hope to heaven that I never have to use it on a person, but would
if myself or family were threatened. I do not have statistics to
boast upstanding gun owners against sloppy or illegal gun owners. I don't
have the answers, but taking away guns from all would be like putting a bandaid
on a melanoma. The problem is much deeper.
It's clearly not going to happen, although it can and should. Banning
certain classes of weapons would not in any way infringe on your right to keep
and bear arms, or mine. It works, by the way, despite claims here to the
contrary. It works all over the world. And our rights? They're not
'god given'. They were crafted by east coast liberal elites. The
second amendment is just that, an amendment. It can be fixed if necessary. But, that's all moot. The NRA controls this issue, not the government or
If the objective is to stop terrorist attacks, why are we not talking about
banning diesel fuel and fertilizer? They are readily available with no
background check or waiting period or purchase limits. And they were used in
our worst domestic terrorist attack in Oklahoma City where 168 people were
killed.It's not the guns, or the diesel and fertilizer, it is
the criminals and crazy people who desire to kill other people.Instead of praising New Zealan's banning guns in a matter of days, we
would be much better off if we could simply try, convict and execute terrorists
in a matter of days. Oh, wait, there are constitutional protections which
don't let us do that.Thank God for our Constitution, and the
wisdom of the founders.
Restricting military function weapons to law enforcement and the military would
be a step in the right direction. They are not needed for recreational shooting
or hunting where magazine size is already restricted. More than 2 shots are
seldom fired in home or personal defense cases. What we haven't learned
from Sandy Hook, Las Vegas and many other mass murders, we should learn from New
The first thing that Hitler and the Nazi regime did to consolidate and keep
their power was to confiscate under penalty of death, all firearms from the
German people. Most Germans, over 90%, were not members of the Nazi party. We
can learn from history.
Nope not ever.
I would really like to know how some of these commenters know that owning a gun
is a God-given right. How do you know that? Did God tell you personally? Is it
in scripture somewhere? You may think that it is ,but it's not. It is a
right in the United States but has nothing to do with God.
In the USA, we have a God-given, fundamental, natural, unalienable,
constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. It is so sacrosanct that
the protection of this right was placed directly next to the First Amendment, of
free speech. You can't have one without the other. In the last century, 200
million people were first disarmed and then executed by their own governments.
Our greatest danger is a government turning tyrannical. And with the shouts from
the Left wanting to move in the direction of totalitarian socialism, now more
than ever, we need to protect our right to arms. We must NEVER give up our
guns... not under any circumstances!
Right now, There is NOT chance in Hades. Democrats want you to believe Gun Laws
work. They haven't worked, only aided criminals that can careless.I highly doubt 2/3 of each Chamber can get together for a Constitutional
Amendment to be sent to the States and/or a President to sign it. It is
extremely unlikely 2/3 of the states will ratify the Amendment.If,
by chance, the Federal Government attempted any mass gun confiscation, hope they
really think about it really hard, though probably not.There are
probably over 150,000,000 legal gun owners. They have over 1,000,000,000 guns.
They have over 12,000,000,000 rounds of ammo. These are estimates, I reckon they
are a lot higher. Who will confiscate?Military? Probably NOT.
Their OATH - I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domesticStates? The Military may step in and and make sure it doesn't happen. No matter what - History will REPEAT itself - last time Gun Confiscation
started it ended in the Revolutionary War. What will the the next time? "God Help Us"
It is extremely disturbing that NZ's left-leaning Prime Minister could
unilaterally dictate disarming her fellow countrymen of effective firearms
without debate. That could never happen in the US as long as the 2nd Amendment
and supporting Supreme Court precedent exist. The latest FBI statistics (2017)
show murders by all rifles was only 403, far fewer than edged weapons (1,591)
and even hands and feet (696). Civilian ownership of semi-auto rifles is a
vital component of our National Defense. Federal Law instructs the US Army to
sell surplus semi-auto rifles more powerful than AR-15's to civilians
through the Civilian Marksmanship Program. It would be treasonous for any US
leader to unilaterally attempt to dispense with this vital guarantee against
domestic tyranny, foreign invasion and violent crime like the NZ Prime Minister
just did. An ISIS spokesman just called upon sleeper cells in NZ to take
revenge. Ms. Ardern's foolish dictatorial edict will leave her countrymen
defenseless. France bans "assault rifles." 130 French citizens were
machine-gunned to death at one "gun-free" rock concert in 2015.
Are you kidding? We can't even agree to eliminate "bump stocks".
And there are those that think guns aren't designed to kill and I guess
didn't have one thing to do with the mass killings in Las Vegas.Oh well, keep that testosterone flowing and just hope the violence
doesn't affect your family because it does affect many innocent families.
As Americans, we are known as the "people of the guns." America will
never take a gun away from anyone, citizen or not. We have plenty of non
citizens living in America that have guns...as many as they want or can afford.
In my opinion all this article did was provoke another series of worn out
commentary on who should or who should not own guns and should we legislate or
not legislate more controlling laws. The comments, mine included, solve
absolutely nothing and never will. We will carry on with gun in hand.
I am thankful we are not NZ. I am thankful we have the 2nd Amendment. I am
incredibly sad for the victims of violence in any form, but gun laws will not
eliminate violence. Another poster has already said that black market guns
flourish in countries where gun ownership is restricted, and I think it would be
even more so here. We are a nation of inventive citizens, and underground gun
makers would have a heyday. Why would we even want to follow the
example of NZ, which bears no resemblance to our nation?
Screenname:"Putting aside the fact that you'd have mass
defections among the armed forces if it came to that, largely neglecting the
training and leadership disparity, smaller, less well equipped forces win all
the time. Besides, it'd be a battle of attrition, with one side fighting
for what they saw as their freedom."Thank you...you've
proven my point that the first question I asked (US military aligned against US
citizens) is far-fetched. I also realize it wouldn't be one side against
another across a field. Technology with the military wouldn't even let it
get to that point. Surgical strikes would be the strategy, and ARs would do
little against it.Also, the examples you gave were against
governments that did not have the technological sophistication of the US armed
forces, so bad examples. We aren't the most powerful military in the world
because of numbers or even combat superiority...it is because of superior
technology (that's why China is constantly trying to steal it).
Let’s not confuse the false sense of security with real security.
Nope, we will never get behind a ban like this because Americans have a fetish
NeverIt is the 2nd amendment Think about it... the first
amendment... nobody would hesitate to call this one the most important freedom
we ever won for humanity The second amendment protects the
individual and his and her god given rights in a very practical wayIt was obvious to the founders of the country... nobody was going to take away
our rights and all free men would have the utmost ability to do so... if they
chose toPretty smart weren’t they
Thanks for this article. It does a nice job of showing that New Zealand, like
Australia did before, is acting very reasonably in doing their job of protecting
its citizens. Protecting citizens, especially our most vulnerable citizens, is
what government is elected to do, and a big part of that includes regulating
access to and use of dangerous substances and technologies, whether its cars,
opioid painkillers, flame-throwers, poisons, or guns. I want a
government that acts reasonably in fulfilling its duties. I want a government
that asks what can we do that we're not doing now to reduce the alarming
frequency of mass murder. New Zealand is setting a good example for us.
What needs to happen? Constitutional amendment to take away our freedom to bear
arms. That’s highly unlikely to ever happened. New Zealand is about the
size of California and have fewer people than the State of Washington. Changing
their gun laws is simpler just like California changes it environmental laws. In
the height of the emotions generated by this tragic incident, this approach
appears to make people feel good about themselves. But truthfully, this law does
not guarantee safety. Criminals will always have the banned weapons to use
during their criminal activities. The funny thing is, those who try to legislate
strict gun ownership have an entourage of people with guns to protect them 24/7.
We will never throw away our freedoms like New Zealand did. We are the United
States of America. Thank god for fellow Republicans and the NRA.
FT said: "Given we have already had the mass slaughter of children, church
attendees, concert goes and thousands more I find it likely America will ever
take the steps to ban many weapons and groups of individual from having
guns."We already have many laws to forbid the killing of people
such as you described--yet they did it anyway.Ban guns and these
types will ignore that too.And still get them and still kill with them.
Or get a truck load of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, nitromethane,
and diesel fuel and make a bomb like the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.There is no way to totally protect against people bent on committing
“When a car kills someone, it wasn't functioning as intended. When a
gun kills someone it was functioning as intended.I'm not sure which
makes me sadder: That people still use this tired old argument, or that they
can't understand the simple logical fallacies in it.”Sorry, BSR, but your argument has some logical holes.First, you
pretend to assume all firearm use is malicious and deadly. It most certainly is
not. Prof. Lott, quoted in the article, has found that privately owned firearms
are used millions of times each year in the U.S. to PREVENT a crime. Those are
beneficial uses.Second, what if we compare guns and alcohol. You
know which one is responsible for more deaths in this country each year,
don’t you? It isn’t guns. So, where’s your outrage?Americans are not willing to give up individual constitutional rights, rights
by which law-abiding citizens can protect themselves, just so we can slide into
nanny-statehood like the Kiwi’s and the Aussies, like the Canadians and
Brits, and like every communist country and third-world dictatorship. THAT would
make me sad.
There are a lot of believe it or not stuff. All I can do is keep looking for the
truth. If you have liberty your not oppressed.
@worf"There are people killed in car accidents.Shouldn't we ban automobiles?"I can't express how
tired I am of this worn out, strawman argument.Automobiles have a
purpose besides killing. You can't say the same thing about guns.When a car kills someone, it's a byproduct of it doing its job. When a
gun kills someone, it did its job.When a car kills someone, it
wasn't functioning as intended. When a gun kills someone it was functioning
as intended.I'm not sure which makes me sadder: That people
still use this tired old argument, or that they can't understand the simple
logical fallacies in it.
There are people killed in car accidents.Shouldn't we ban
The shooter in NZ could take comfort in knowing that hardly any NZers have guns.
The shooter was Aussie, not Kiwi.
Cougsndawgs,To your second point, ask the American revolutionaries,
the Viet Cong, the Arabs vs the Soviets, or any other successful guerrilla
operation. It wouldn't be a bunch of civilians with AR rifles lining up on
one side of a field with the full might of the military on the other.Putting aside the fact that you'd have mass defections among the armed
forces if it came to that, largely neglecting the training and leadership
disparity, smaller, less well equipped forces win all the time. Besides,
it'd be a battle of attrition, with one side fighting for what they saw as
The three pillars of gun control are totalitarian in their assumptions. Either
the right to self defense (and the proper tools to allow defense at least equal
to a possible adversary) as outlined in the Constitution is a "natural"
or "God given" right or it is not. As soon as any State is allowed to
define this as a "privilege", the state assumes the power to remove any
aspect of defending oneself it finds out of line with current thought, and any
benefit from the right is revocable.Most countries that surrender
this right eventually regret it. According to the University of Hawaii democide
project, all 20th century state sponsored genocides, accounting for over 120
million dead, were preceded by gun confiscation. No American, or any other
person, should be asked to surrender this right. It has a price, but liberty
never was free.
Virtually none of the articles on New Zealand implementing gun control detail
the method used for that implementation. This article barely skirts it, showing
that the article is an outright advocacy piece designed to advance an agenda and
not to educate the readers.How exactly did New Zealand implement
their gun control? Their chief executive just declared it law. At least this
article says that the issue will eventually go before parliament, and that there
will be some intense debate.So let me ask you: How many gun control
advocates would like to put that power in the hands of Donald Trump? There was
absolute hysteria when he announced unilaterally that he was going to build a
wall. Will we let him simply declare that something is illegal? Can he, on his
word alone, outlaw abortions? New Zealand's Prime Minister apparently can.
Should Trump be able to declare the press a national nuisance on his word
alone? Apparently the Prime Minister can.People wake up! We have
not wanted, from the founding of this nation, to have an executive with that
much power. This is not talking gun control alone, but the entire Bill of
Rights. Wake up! Wake up!
Even though America has United in the name of our country, it's doubtful we
could ever be UNITED re some issues; firearms being at/near the top of the list.
We're territorial, even, divisive re state, county & city legislation.
To me, National laws that unify & strengthen America make more sense. You
know the platitude, "All for one & one for all".
Respectfully, we're not talking about unity here, unity does not allow for
utterly diametrically opposed viewpoints, at best we're discussing
compromises that will leave both sides unfulfilled, at worst we're
discussing who is going to gain enough control to impose their will in those who
disagree.I'm not parsing words like some lawyer here, you
really need to think about what the actual results of changing established laws
are. If you make licensing mandatory for all owners and firearms, everyone who
does not comply is now a criminal, conservatively lets say 75% do, that only
leaves around several million new criminals to be dealt with, criminals whose
primary defining trait is being armed. What can possibly go wrong with that
equation?I can't unify with someone when I fundamentally
disagree with the entire premise of their answer. The pillars are flawed on
their entire basis, thinking that such measures will prevent violence. How would
you even know to look for a weapon until it has been used? You can't search
for something until it has been used, unless you automatically assume the
weapons and their owners will engage in violence.
Let's hope not.
No we Should not follow them.The crooks and villains don't obey
laws. What are you guys missing about that?
No! Because they don't have Democrats over there. They'll start here
with 'military-style semi-automatic guns and assault rifles' and
within ten years the only people in America with guns will be criminals; who
Democrats will go nuts keeping out of jail because they want their votes. No
So, I am trying to follow the logic of making these changes to our gun laws in
the US...how many law-abiding citizens have killed someone or have a gun
illegally? How will I or my children be safer by enacting these laws? So,
because there is a law against drinking and driving, I am supposed to feel safer
that no one will drive drunk?
I have over a dozen guns in my home and have had guns my entire life and yet my
guns have never shot anyone. Why? I'll bet, per capita, there are several
guns per resident within 20 miles of my home and yet kids play in the street
day and night and old ladies are out gardening without a care in the world. How
is that possible? Shouldn't there be death and gun shot mayhem everywhere?
"We united behind the second amendment and signed it into law. What more do
you need to know?"Who is this WE you speak of?None
of us were here 250 years ago and a LOT has changed in that time. And don't forget that 250 years ago WE also included something about
"a well-regulated militia."Unfortunately, WE have forgotten
all about that little detail.I'm afraid the only way we the
people today will have any chance of change will be when finally harm comes to
some family members of wealthy prominent citizens or powerful politicians.There IS middle ground out there, but so far WE refuse to even look in
Cougsandawgs your comment at 3:11 was excellent. Unfortunately, it is probably
much too sensible and sane for any of the gun-totein' NRA folks to consider
for even a moment.
@ridal"It is a little disturbing to see a society abandon its
rights so quickly and easily in a knee-jerk reaction to *one* incident carried
out by a disturbed lunatic."Oh if only it were just one...There's a shooting by a "disturbed lunatic" every week in
If it's left up to the gun crowd, we'll be traveling to Mars and
taking our guns with us.
It became abundantly clear with Sandyhook and every mass shooting since that if
an occasional slaughter is the price to pay to ensure our gun-toting rights
remain sacrosanct then, so be it.
Reactionary legislation usually isn't in anyone's best interest. That
said, I'm conservative, a gun owner, and avid believer in the 2nd
amendment.But to the avid NRA gunslingers and tinfoil hat-wearers I
have just a couple of questions. 1) There are certainly scenarios
where the US military may turn their guns on US citizens, but how likely do you
think those scenarios are? Again, realistically, not your garden variety
conspiracy theory about tyrannical socialists.2) If the scenario
above actually came to fruition (not likely, but for the sake of argument), how
well do you think citizens toting personal assault weapons would do against a
"well-regulated", trained, and disciplined army...to say nothing of the
technological superiority of US forces?It's time for sanity to
rule the day. It's time for our children to be more safe, and if
far-fetched conspiracy theories about tyrannical governments are your only
reason for clinging to ARs it's time to be honest with yourself, and
ourselves as a society about whether these outlandish scenarios are more
realistic than making even a small difference in the safety of our kids.
"What needs to happen for America to unite behind a gun policy like New
Zealand did?"Ballot initiatives. There are gun policies
supported by up to 90% of the public that keep getting blocked (particularly
background checks on all gun purchases).
Let me teach Robyn and others that haven’t studied world history.
Everytime the government takes guns from citizens it ultimately leads to
government control of EVERYTHING. Japan, Germany, Soviet Union. I prefer to have
the ability to protect myself and loved ones. If you want to be at the Mercer of
the government turn them in.
So if that gunman used bombs made out of five gallon gas cans, instead of guns,
should they ban fuel? Why do people think if you "ban" something like
guns, all will be well in the world?Should we ban automobiles as well?
Terrorists have used those to run people down. Evil people will ALWAYS exist,
and find any means necessary to carry out their acts. It's the unfortunate
world we live in. Try taking the guns away from the citizens of the United
States, and say hello to Civil War II.
When I was young, cars were "unsafe at any speed," in the words of Ralph
Nader. They didn't even have seat belts! Highways were dangerous too.
The number of Americans killed in traffic accidents was upwards of 50,000 a
year.When I was young, if you owned a gun, it was probably a .30-06
deer rifle, or a 12 ga. pump shotgun, or some such thing. If you had a handgun,
it might have been revolver. Gun deaths were so low, they didn't even
compare to traffic deaths.Today, cars and highways are far safer.
With far more people on the roads, annual traffic deaths are down under
30,000. But now if you own a gun, it may well be an assault
"style" rifle (yes gun nuts, I know about the distinction). Handguns
are mostly semi-automatic too.And now, you are more likely to be
killed by a bullet than a car.
To "Brave Sir Robin" yes, it is so horrible, those older people who know
the constitution and want to enjoy the freedoms that it guarantees. If only they
didn't know the Constitution, then we could get rid of the guns...To "tothemoon" that is still better than imposing gun laws that only
make it harder to buy guns legally and don't actually stop criminals from
getting guns. It is also better than disarming people so that your ilk can feel
"safe". Getting rid of guns doesn't work. Ironically what does work
is gun ownership and teaching kids gun safety. See "REMEMBER THE 2007
HARVARD STUDY SHOWING MORE GUNS LED TO LESS CRIME?" in the Daily Caller.
They reference a Harvard Study showing more guns is better for society. See also
"Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet" in Forbes.
Again more guns, less crime. See also "Here Are 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun
Violence in America" at Heritage.
Could the United States ever unite behind a gun ban like New Zealand just
did?Uhhh...that would be a NO WAY!With libs like Obama
and Bernie, we need guns to stave off a probable revolt!
Couple of things wrong in the article first paragraph, 'assault
rifles' have a specific definition and they are already heavily regulated
in the US. I personally don't know of anyone who owns one and have never
seen one outside of the military. Second, 'military-style semi-automatic
guns' is ambiguous. I am not sure if they are talking about something that
looks like something the military uses or any semi-automatic weapon. In either
case, nothing makes them any more lethal than any other gun. The
bottom line is the US is different than New Zealand because of the 2nd
amendment. Has nothing to do with the squishy, hand wringing in the article. Too
many talking points and not enough in-depth journalism.
Love the argument that your small arsenals of AR-15s are what keeps you safe
from the government and what preserves your individual rights. It'd be rock
solid if the Civil War never happened and destroyed it via counterexample.Law-abiding citizens should be allowed to have guns. There's no
reason why those law-fearing gun owners shouldn't be happy to register
their weapons and be licensed to own them, including accepting responsibility
for any damage caused by their guns via their own actions and/or negligence.We should probably explore banning semi-autos with a muzzle velocity (or
some other quantifiable measure of destructiveness) above a certain threshold.
You want a gun that fires big-caliber, high velocity ammo? Fine, work the bolt
like a real man.
With all the claimed gun violence here you would expect that people would be
leaving the USA in droves. Mexico which has all the gun restrictions you want
us to have should be seeing people move there. But the reverse is true. Too
bad you have to manipulate the truth for your story. You started out listing
mas shootings, then you switched to all gun deaths. See if you leave out
suicides and accidental shootings, you have only 40% of your gun deaths. Read
headlines in England, you will see how many people were stabbed to death
yesterday. You will read about people being afraid of roving gangs. Here you
read about people shooting people who break into their homes. The world is a
violent place. Good thing I can protect myself when someone kicks in my door.
And that is why people move here and don't move back to other countries.
No--we are a less that courageous nation and we are under the delusion that we
would be able to protect ourselves with our cache of guns if the government ever
tried to enslave us. Meanwhile we willingly admit that we aren't able to
protect our own children and that our freedom to perpetuate the first notion is
more important than children's freedom from fear. In short--I look at this
in much the same way as the rest of the civilized world does--meaning--US +
guns=fear and insanity.
According to the Uniform Crime Report, 692 persons were killed with
“personal weapons” like “fists, feet.” 138 TOTAL
active shooter deaths in 2017, with 10 - 15,000,000 military style semi
automatics in circulation. Obviously a single death is tragic, but with 320+
million people out there, I would say that the total taken by sociopaths /
psychopaths is remarkably low.
Already did in 1994.
Short answer: No. Long answer: Heck No!
1. Why is it that people don't remember that we won our freedom from
England with guns?2. Why is it that people can't remember Hitler?3. Why is it that people get all up in arms when someone kills a few with a
gun but not many more with cars, hammers, bats, airplanes, etc.?How
hard will it be form a few radicals to take over and subject New Zealand's
citizens with no means to fight back? Ask Mr. Hitler.Having guns is
all about freedom. The 2nd Amendment IS the only one protecting all of the
others.Treat the disease and the symptom will go away.
Given we have already had the mass slaughter of children, church attendees,
concert goes and thousands more I find it likely America will ever take the
steps to ban many weapons and groups of individual from having guns.
If gunning down 40 children at Sandy Hook couldn't make us come together to
pass laws, nothing will....ever. It will be 'thoughts and prayers'.
And the right (I'm mostly conservative myself) believing that if we limit
guns we will somehow turn into a 3rd world dictatorship. And yes, if the only
thing preventing us from being Venezuela as one commentator said, is owning
massive amounts of guns, we will become Venezuela sooner or later anyways.
I do not agree with your article! This is naÏve on your part to think that
by banning guns will resolve all problems. Whoever has an intention to hurt
someone else, will do it with or without guns.
Why are leftists so consumed with denying rights to mankind? Why do they trust
big government? History shows taking guns away is prelude to the destruction of
liberty and often leafs to the death of millions by the state.
The Holomodor and Cultural Revolution are compelling historical examples of what
happens when you let those on the left take away your gun.
Here we go again. Could the United States ever unite behind a gun ban like New
Zealand just did? The answer is no! The Second Amendment
guarantees the right of the people in this country to keep and bear Arms,
including semi-automatic rifles and it has everything to do with freedom.Other countries are free to do what they want but, realistically, it is
a waste of time to think the Second Amendment will be repealed. Not going to
It is a little disturbing to see a society abandon its rights so quickly and
easily in a knee-jerk reaction to *one* incident carried out by a disturbed
lunatic.This explains why liberty is constantly eroding and never
expanding. The rights of law abiding people are continually eroded based on
trying to control the actions of an infinitesimally small fraction of criminals.
But since there is always something that a disturbed individual can do
to create mayhem, more and more rights disappear. Last week Britain jailed a
woman for "misgendering someone".
In the immortal words of Miracle Max and his wife in The Princess Bride: Think it'll work? It'll take a miracle. But that's exactly what I'm praying for.
"In order for the U.S. to reach a consensus on gun policy, Americans will
need to let go of the "conviction that guns have something to do with
freedom..."I can't decide if that statement is incredibly
naive, or just obtuse. Guns have always been used to gain or preserve the
freedom of the United States of America. And with the second
amendment in place. It will always be that way.
I would rather unite with reason, logic, and historical fact than with a leftist
trying to steal freedoms away from her nation.
@Elizabeth Bennet - Pemberly, UK, 00March 22, 2019 11:57 a.m."We
united behind the second amendment and signed it into law. What more do you need
to know?"Well said. When we formed the nation, we decided on the
principle that citizens would be able to defend themselves with guns. Venezuela
would be in a much better place if they had not turned over their guns.
Not until the older generation goes by the wayside. Too many of them think that
their right to feel awesome by owning a gun is more valuable than your right to
not get shot.
Yeah, it's the NRA's and GOP's fault. Might as well throw the
founding fathers in there as well. Banning guns is never going to happen here.
And you're delusional if you think gun control will stop horrific acts of
terror perpetrated by a lone gunman.
Interesting. I have yet to see ONE single (mass) shooting of any kind. Where
someone or anyone was killed by a gun. I have seen several where an evil
person/persons killed people, using a firearm,bomb, knife, vehicle or even a
plane! But, yet to see one where a gun did the killing!The author
of this article, should be asking why a single individual(the New Zealand PM)
believes they have the right to diminish the freedoms of an entire nation. For
the actions of a single evil person!
No, we could never affect such a ban. We are too selfish, and we have had too
much practice making excuses to justify our reprehensible behavior.
We united behind the second amendment and signed it into law. What more do you
need to know?We need to encourage other friendly nations to adopt it
and encourage owning guns, especially in Taiwan.
Thanks but no thanks for the suggestion, New Zealand. We'll just stick
with thoughts and prayers.
Sandy Hook proved that not only is there no tragedy so great that it will unite
this country on guns, it showed that the greater the tragedy the more we become
Probably not going to happen here. The NRA has too much money tied
up with the GOP and Republican lawmakers will never allow it under the fake
guise of "freedom". Even as the number of Americans impacted
by gun violence continues to skyrocket..