EPT
On August 25 2012 08:49 Game wrote:
I edited my post. I initially stopped reading your post because it was idiotic, but now I addressed it with a real response.
I edited my post. I initially stopped reading your post because it was idiotic, but now I addressed it with a real response.
The fact of the matter is, I used statistics to talk about the rate of accidental gun deaths. If we increase the number of carry permits and gun owners, this will increase the number of accidental gun deaths. This is not an insult to gun owners. Just like if we have more drivers, there will be more car accidents. This is just the way it is-- sober analysis of the facts, something our nation's political discourse lacks.
You are welcome to never post on any of my blogs ever again.
Edit:
Your updated response post is heavily emotional and does not address the 700 accidental posts deaths year.
+ Show Spoiler +
On August 25 2012 08:40 Game wrote:
Disclaimer: I am NOT a neo-conservative, which you attribute conservatism to in this write-up improperly.
I am however a libertarian, a true conservative. With that, I would like you to simple spend 30 seconds of your life and read up on the Kennesaw Gun Law of 1982.
The law made it where every person in that city has to be armed. There has to be a weapon in every single household, and the ammunition that goes with that weapon. Since 1982, crime has gone down drastically. This is not inclusive of the quadrupling of their population. That means their population has grown 400% while their crimes have dropped to less than half of what they were in total in 1982.
As an American, you might think: Well, what about felons? Felons one, have guns illegally. Secondly, they have to go before the town commission and get permission to live in the city of Kennesaw, in which they are told by an official that the city is not liable for their death if they happen to put themselves in a situation that they would then be in an unarmed versus armed situation.
With that said, it's easy to think that if guns were limited, or eliminated as common holdings that less deaths, accidents, and injuries would occur. Unfortunately, John Lennon's "Imagine" only really goes so far. Illegitimate guns will always be in the hands of wrongdoers, and thus, our problem is too big to simplify with minimalistic points of views. It's been proven that by city, the more legitimate (registered - legally owned guns) that exist per registered criminal residing in said city, the lower the crime.
If that is not convincing enough for you, google which city in America has the strictest gun laws and restrictions. You'll find it's Chicago. You know what Chicago also has? The most shootings, death by shooting, and pistol abundance in the country. I might not be a scientist, but your theory is fucked, radical, and in defiance of the most physical proprietary amendment of our nation.
Edit: In the state of Florida, which I live and happen to be certified for multiple gun licenses (along with investigative licenses), we enacted gun licensing paired with our "Stand Your Ground" act of 2005. Since 2005, 33 states have adopted our gun licensing programs, and the act itself. As somehow trained in dispersing of concealed, armed carry, and various other licenses regarding firearms, I must say that your post is entirely insulting. Yes, there are people who will write you off for a license and not give you proper training. I'd say a good 5% of people licensed in my state have gone that route. With that, the other 95% had to sit in 4 to 72 hours of courses, pass tests on what they've learned, and go to the shooting range to prove competency with the weapon they are attempting certification in. Your approach on limiting accidental shootings, or purposeful ones for that matter, do not stem for the majority around the issue you're trying to propose as the problem. It's the inexperienced, incompetent, unlicensed, and typically mentally handicapped (by way of partial insanity or other mental illness) whom go out to ranges and accidentally shoot the person next to them, or their co-worker in the foot, or leg, or who knows what. There are ample cameras or recording devices in every range for that purpose. With that, I end with this: To assume that guns hurt people, and not that unqualified hurt people in these cases is as insane as the asshole who "misfired" at any range on any given day.
Edit 2: Research how many government programs, or crime prevention/educational programs state departments and the government have tried to introduce that have failed miserably. No one wants to pay the tax dollars for failure programs. You cannot rely on people to not be idiotic, and thus, the intelligent people primarily paying the cost of all errors inclusive of said programs would rather just let human nature take its course and have those people eliminate themselves. I'm pretty sure every American remembers D.A.R.E, or G.R.E.A.T and still went out and became delinquent and or used drugs. That's a very primed, yet primitive example of what you're suggesting regarding gun safety.
Disclaimer: I am NOT a neo-conservative, which you attribute conservatism to in this write-up improperly.
I am however a libertarian, a true conservative. With that, I would like you to simple spend 30 seconds of your life and read up on the Kennesaw Gun Law of 1982.
The law made it where every person in that city has to be armed. There has to be a weapon in every single household, and the ammunition that goes with that weapon. Since 1982, crime has gone down drastically. This is not inclusive of the quadrupling of their population. That means their population has grown 400% while their crimes have dropped to less than half of what they were in total in 1982.
As an American, you might think: Well, what about felons? Felons one, have guns illegally. Secondly, they have to go before the town commission and get permission to live in the city of Kennesaw, in which they are told by an official that the city is not liable for their death if they happen to put themselves in a situation that they would then be in an unarmed versus armed situation.
With that said, it's easy to think that if guns were limited, or eliminated as common holdings that less deaths, accidents, and injuries would occur. Unfortunately, John Lennon's "Imagine" only really goes so far. Illegitimate guns will always be in the hands of wrongdoers, and thus, our problem is too big to simplify with minimalistic points of views. It's been proven that by city, the more legitimate (registered - legally owned guns) that exist per registered criminal residing in said city, the lower the crime.
If that is not convincing enough for you, google which city in America has the strictest gun laws and restrictions. You'll find it's Chicago. You know what Chicago also has? The most shootings, death by shooting, and pistol abundance in the country. I might not be a scientist, but your theory is fucked, radical, and in defiance of the most physical proprietary amendment of our nation.
Edit: In the state of Florida, which I live and happen to be certified for multiple gun licenses (along with investigative licenses), we enacted gun licensing paired with our "Stand Your Ground" act of 2005. Since 2005, 33 states have adopted our gun licensing programs, and the act itself. As somehow trained in dispersing of concealed, armed carry, and various other licenses regarding firearms, I must say that your post is entirely insulting. Yes, there are people who will write you off for a license and not give you proper training. I'd say a good 5% of people licensed in my state have gone that route. With that, the other 95% had to sit in 4 to 72 hours of courses, pass tests on what they've learned, and go to the shooting range to prove competency with the weapon they are attempting certification in. Your approach on limiting accidental shootings, or purposeful ones for that matter, do not stem for the majority around the issue you're trying to propose as the problem. It's the inexperienced, incompetent, unlicensed, and typically mentally handicapped (by way of partial insanity or other mental illness) whom go out to ranges and accidentally shoot the person next to them, or their co-worker in the foot, or leg, or who knows what. There are ample cameras or recording devices in every range for that purpose. With that, I end with this: To assume that guns hurt people, and not that unqualified hurt people in these cases is as insane as the asshole who "misfired" at any range on any given day.
Edit 2: Research how many government programs, or crime prevention/educational programs state departments and the government have tried to introduce that have failed miserably. No one wants to pay the tax dollars for failure programs. You cannot rely on people to not be idiotic, and thus, the intelligent people primarily paying the cost of all errors inclusive of said programs would rather just let human nature take its course and have those people eliminate themselves. I'm pretty sure every American remembers D.A.R.E, or G.R.E.A.T and still went out and became delinquent and or used drugs. That's a very primed, yet primitive example of what you're suggesting regarding gun safety.
All of this is very nice and touching, and while I am sure you are an intelligent and thoughtful man, the fact of the matter is, 700 people a year die in gun accidents. Oddly, you seem to continue not to address this. You might say DARE or GREAT didn't work, but that doesn't change the fact that gun accidents will increase with gun ownership. Tax dollars for failure programs? What are you even going on about? I'm just saying, more guns/gun owners = more gun accidents.
