The diary of Anne Frank is falling behind

[AngelSpeaks]

On one hand, liberals tell us we need tougher gun laws and gun restrictions. While simultaneously emptying the prisons of second and third strikers, many of whom go on to commit more heinous crimes. It's really hard to take these people seriously. Enforce current law!

In my state they passed zero bail for many violent crimes. It's being appealed. Last week a Chicago Police Officer was shot and killed by someone who should have been in jail for illegal weapons. DA Kim Foxx dropped the charges.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

I am not saying to outlaw guns. I am saying that if you own a gun, you should have a license to own it, like a drivers license for guns. In Chicago, gang mules go into Indiana and buy trunk- fulls of guns for Chicago gangs. Is that what the founders thought about when they wrote the second amendment? I don't think so, unless you consider a street gang to be a militia. I owned a lot of guns, and having them licensed would have not been a problem for me, because I was a hunter, and the gun was a tool, not a part of who I was. I didn't need a gun to feel Macho. We have more guns than people in this country, and that does not make sense to me. Some say it's about freedom, but as the old legal adage goes, "your freedom ends where my nose begins".

Yes you should have a license. Most 2A supporters would agree with that. Most 2A supporters push for responsible gun ownership.

 

[Steve R.]

Why do we have so many incarcerations if we are soft on crime?

A better question, why are these people acting in an antisocial manner that results in them being sent to jail?

 

[moke123]

They also object to young children being exposed to drag shows. These shows are sexually explicit and confuse children. They are adult entertainment and that's where they belong.

Yea, this is terrifying

 

[jpl458]

A better question, why are these people acting in an antisocial manner that results in them being sent to jail?

Read Pat's response.

 

[KitaYama]

What people outside the US don't understand about guns in the US that not everyone has a six-shooter on his hip.

@Pat Hartman Again, you are wrong.
We don't think every citizen in US has a six-shooter on his hip.
We think that even a very small not automatic pocket pistol can kill. We don't understand how easy you kill people to protect yourself.

Let me tell you a true and real story.

We have a neighbor who lives just in front of our house. I hate him and he hates me. I see only two possibilities if I had a gun
Either I had shot him more than 10 times. He would be dead and I would be in prison.
Or it was the other way. He had shot me, I was dead and he was in prison. There's a long story about this and why we wish each other dead.

But neither of us are dead nor in prison. Do you know why? Because we are not allowed to have guns.
In 2022, 20138 people has died by gun violence. (Excluding suicides)
How many of them wouldn't have been dead if US laws didn't permit guns. (Licensed or not licensed)
How many of them were with their families if gun was banned (like most other countries).

What we (people outside US) don't understand is why you had 607 mass shootings in 2022, 690 mass shooting in 2011 and you as an individual or other citizens and your government still support gun ownership. What we don't understand is why life is so priceless in US. I've seen so many posts in social media where a thief tries to rob a shop and is shot dead and every one comments "He got what he deserves." and I think how watching somebody die, how seeing a life being vanished is easy for your people. What we don't understand is why blame Democrats, blame acholic mothers, blame criminals and god knows how many more things (except yourself) to justify what is happening in US. Do you think rotten politician, useless government, alcoholic mothers, abusing parents, criminals.... don't exist in France or Sweden Or Denmark or Japan or how many more countries?

What we don't understand is why protecting your schools against mass shooting ends up : Let the teachers carry fire arms too. Doesn't it end to more gun violence?

I really didn't intend to post anything else on this topic, mostly because the conversation has got out of my depth. I just wanted to say you haven't even understood why you (happenings in US) has been criticized.

 

[KitaYama]

I'm wrong a lot.

If you don't have the self control to not shoot someone you hate just because you have a gun in your hand, you absolutely should not have a gun because you cannot be trusted with one. I'm not sure I can say that I hate anyone. However, if someone broke into my house or threatened my grandchildren, I would not have any trouble shooting them. I'd be upset about it later I'm sure. But I would never go out and kill anyone just because I had a gun.

It doesn't matter how many guns there are. If no one shoots, no one dies. That's how it works. Allowing teachers to carry guns doesn't mean they're going to kill the children but if a crazy person comes in, they have a chance to protect themselves and the children. Mass killers choose soft targets. They choose schools and churches rather than police stations and gun ranges.

Why do you think terrorists around the world use bombs or ricin or anthrax, even in the US? Because guns are harder to get than you think and you have to pass a background check to get a license before you can buy a gun. Plus guns take more time to do widespread damage and therefore, you run more risk of dying in the process.

You forgot to mention that guns are used by humans and humans have temper, state of mind, sadness, fear, anger, disgust, surprise, anxiety, confusion, fear and a lot more emotions and if you think you can handle yourself during one of those emotions I say you still don't know human.

You say When one of those emotions hit the ceiling or reach their limits you do something and then regret it when you calm down.
I say, I'm glad to be in a place where owning a tool that makes me regret the consequences of its use is banned.

If you don't have the self control to not shoot someone you hate just because you have a gun in your hand you absolutely should not have a gun

One simple question. How many of those who own a gun have self control to not shoot someone they hate?

And another question:
When you go and ask for a license to buy a gun, is there any tests that shows 1-You will use it only when you are attacked. and 2-Will not use it when you get angry or hate someone?

Let me give you a hint :There may be some inquiries about if you have mental problems or not, but for sure they don't know how you act when anger in you goes to its maximum. Because it's un-predictable even for a healthy normal person.

 

[ColinEssex]

I'm wrong a lot.

As we all are. That's normal.

I'm not sure I can say that I hate anyone.

you hate me

However, if someone broke into my house or threatened my grandchildren, I would not have any trouble shooting them.

Youre linking two separate things here using the word 'or' instead of 'and'.
So to clarify, if someone broke in and was not threatening, you would shoot them and presumably kill them. Would you not establish if they are armed, ? or just a kid taking a chance? Or maybe a young girl needing a few dollars?
It could be that the perpetrator comes from a home where parents spent very little time raising them properly, like those kids who smashed up Congress.
If someone broke in and was threatening, i suppose you would not establish any of the above. You would just shoot them in the face irrespective of their motives or reasons.
It seems to me that the old saying 'shoot first, ask questions later' is your rule you live by. Also I'm guessing there would be no police action against you for wounding or killing maybe an unarmed intruder, American police seem to encourage retaliation looking at the USA police action programmes.

But I would never go out and kill anyone just because I had a gun.

That may be true. But could you look into the eyes of a scared teenage girl and blow their brains out?

Col

 

[ebs17]

Why do you think terrorists around the world use bombs or ricin or anthrax, even in the US?

What good is a strapped automatic weapon against a bomb, ricin or antrax?
What good is this weapon if the enemy is simply more ruthless and shoots better and faster than you?

 

[moke123]

Why do you think terrorists around the world use bombs or ricin or anthrax, even in the US?

Because they do not need to be present when the damage is done, with the exception of a suicide bomber.

 

[jpl458]

"If you don't have the self control to not shoot someone you hate just because you have a gun in your hand, you absolutely should not have a gun because you cannot be trusted with one."

I agree with that, so how do you legislate it, how do you make sure that those that shouldn't have guns, have them.

 

[cheekybuddha]

how do you make sure that those that shouldn't have guns, have them.

I suspect that there's an extra/missing n[o|']t in there somewhere!

 

[jpl458]

I suspect that there's an extra/missing n[o|']t in there somewhere!

????

 

[ebs17]

There is no way to ensure that. There are also people who act on impulse. With which person can you be sure that he never gets extraordinarily upset?
There are also fearful people who shoot first and look carefully afterwards.

Nor does the person who legally owns the weapon have to pull the trigger. There are curious children and highly emotional teenagers. The presence of a gun is already a problem.

 

[cheekybuddha]

????

Sorry, the quote grabbed more than i intended (now edited).

It read to me that you were trying to work out getting guns to those who should NOT have them!

 

[AngelSpeaks]

"If you don't have the self control to not shoot someone you hate just because you have a gun in your hand, you absolutely should not have a gun because you cannot be trusted with one."

I agree with that, so how do you legislate it, how do you make sure that those that shouldn't have guns, have them.

It really depends on the state. First you need a FOID card which is firearms owner ID. The state police takes your finger prints and does a background check. In my state, a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence gets you a big NO! When you purchase a firearm, the dealer is supposed to hold onto it until they check with the state police. Every one has to follow their jobs here. There are checks and balances.

 

[jpl458]

Sorry, the quote grabbed more than i intended (now edited).

It read to me that you were trying to work out getting guns to those who should NOT have them!

Not what I meant at all. It seems to me that having fewer guns, with extensive background checks, and licensing would reduce gun deaths. I know a gun dealer, and you can just walk into his store and walk out with any kind of gun, few, if any , questions asked. Beyond the physical aspect of firearms, it's now an industry that churnes a lot of money. Guns are dangerous and I put them right up there with the danger and peril of drag queens

 

[ebs17]

Where there are many legal weapons, there are also many illegal weapons. Weapons are lost, stolen, resold under the table.

 

[cheekybuddha]

Not what I meant at all.

That's what I thought, and was trying to point out to you!

 

[jpl458]

It really depends on the state. First you need a FOID card which is firearms owner ID. The state police takes your finger prints and does a background check. In my state, a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence gets you a big NO! When you purchase a firearm, the dealer is supposed to hold onto it until they check with the state police. Every one has to follow their jobs here. There are checks and balances.

What state are you mentioning? I live in Texas, and anything goes, it seems.