Proposals on how to tackle the issue of gun related crime

John_C_87

ZeusAres42 said:

@John_C_87

nor will either hand-guns or high powered guns be enough to do anything in the extremely improbable event of Government Tyranny.

Are you sure this is whole truth?

If government tyranny is your concern then you better start campaigning to acquire the exact amount of firepower as that of the US military because that is what you are going to need in the event of this highly improbable event.

@John_C_87 ;

A Tyranny in governing is not restricted to government itself, the process which is to be created by a creator to be cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control is applied to government as lack of address in legislation. The applied actions of a single person as well can be a tyrannical form of governing, rape and mass shootings are the noted criminal legal precedent in truth.

The precedent shared as united state in civil and criminal right is described as truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth.  A whole truth is the person who refuses to own a gun is equally in sharing the burden of illegal application of lethal force. They offer no resistance as equally to means to end multiple victims. The negligence of gun ownership is an open basic principle and applies to refusal to own a gun as independent.

The truth is a ballistic shield is creating equality between two or more types of negligence to establish a common defense which is shared between united state in levels of defense. The stop of Tyranny imposed by a shooter by lethal force already under way has three opinions. Let the shooting continue and wait for help, allow self-preservation by equal application of force, and prepare for an aggressive defensive end to conflict.    

   

CYDdharta

ZeusAres42 said:

If government tyranny is your concern then you better start campaigning to acquire the exact amount of firepower as that of the US military because that is what you are going to need in the event of this highly improbable event.

Someone better tell the Afghans that they can't win against the US.

billbatard

@ZeusAres42 What we really need to do is go much further, handguns should be banned or reclassified as destructive weapons requiring a federal fire arms license same with all semi automatic long guns ban them ban them outright no ifs and or buts or alternatively recassify them as automatic weapons or the equivlant and require a federal fire arms licensehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armsel_Striker#Availability_in_the_United_States

billbatard

The Weird Reason Why Gun Ownership in America Is at Its Lowest Point Since the 1970s  The Weird Reason Why Gun Ownership in America Is at Its Lowest Point Since the 1970s  Despite a recent uptick in gun sales, the percentage of U.S. households that own guns is at its lowest level in almost four decades, a new poll has found.

A recent CBS News poll found that 36% of adults either personally own a firearm or live with someone who does–the lowest level since 1978. That’s 10% lower than gun ownership rates in 2012 and 17 points lower than 1994’s high of 53%. Despite a recent uptick in gun sales, the percentage of U.S. households that own guns is at its lowest level in almost four decades, a new poll has found.

A recent CBS News poll found that 36% of adults either personally own a firearm or live with someone who does–the lowest level since 1978. That’s 10% lower than gun ownership rates in 2012 and 17 points lower than 1994’s high of 53%.

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

@CYDdharta

@billbatard

One of the problems in the United States, is with the apparent tyranny of the career criminals, and the offenders, who committed their crimes with their illegal guns, along with the other objects that they used to assault, hurt, maim, cripple, or killed their innocent victim's with? 

Still no signs of any protesters, who could take to any of the public streets, across the country, to publicly protest the crimes, that the career criminals, offenders, and the first time offenders, have been committing for days, weeks, months, and decades now in the United States?

@ZeusAres42

@CYDdharta

@billbatard

I went channel surfing, and there isn't a small group of protesters, or 2 million plus protesters, getting any type of nationwide news media outlet coverage, for protesting the tyrannical crimes that have been getting committed by the career criminals, or the offenders, for a long time now?

"ty·ran·ni·cal

adjective

1. exercising power in a cruel or arbitrary way."

Or, maybe, in, a sense, some don't view the crimes, that some commit with their illegal guns, or their other weapons of choice, as they, by apparently exercising their own individualized power over another, with an illegal gun, or their own weapons of choice in their own cruel ways? 

Or, maybe, in a sense, some don't view the crimes, of the criminals, or the offenders, as in, a sense, being oppressive, dictatorial, despotic, autocratic, repressive, fascistic, tyrannous, absolute, or totalitarian, with their illegal uses, of their guns, knives, baseball bats, clubs, vehicles, and or with their probable uses of their domestic abuse, and violence tendencies? 

I guess that's why, maybe seeing a group, or 2 million plus protesters, might choose protesting some of the police officers, over maybe protesting, the career criminals, the offenders, and the first time offenders, instead, and holding them responsible for the crimes that they've been committing for days, weeks, months, and years now, against the rest of the public as a whole? 

ZeusAres42

@CYDdharta

The key fact that you're ignoring is that guns are often used to thwart crime, up to 3+ million times per year; terrorism is not.

That's a wild accusation.

Regardless, your passing of the issue still does not justify the rational as to why you don't think anything should be done about gun crime that causes either homicides or casualties (which is still in the thousands no matter how you want to look at it). Again, gun related homicides still amount to far more more than deaths occuring from acts of terrorism. Your own stance is that because the figures are so small in comparison to the overall increasing population of the US nothing should be done. Therefore it should follow that you also hold this same view in regards to extreme acts of terrorism which are rare, and many more times rare than gun-related homicides.  And there is nothing you can to do justify this unless you actually changed your own stance.

Your argument in logical form:

Premise 1: "There are thousands of gun-related homicides every year in the USA.

Premise 2: "The USA consists of more than three hundred million people,"

Premise 3: "These are small figures in comparison to the overall US population."

Conclusion: "Therefore nothing needs to be done about gun-related homicides."

This is not a very strong argument at all in my opinion, howbeit is one that I used to hold.

ZeusAres42

@CYDdharta

Someone better tell the Afghans that they can't win against the US.

Have you got anything that is actually on topic and follows on from what I said in reference to government tyranny?

ZeusAres42

Many things are possible but, only very few are actually probable and among them is the concept of government tyranny. And if anyone thinks that they could take on the US Military with mere handguns and assault weapons in the improbable event of government tyranny then they really are morons.

ZeusAres42

@billbatard

With the collective insanity of the NRA that is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Talking of insanity did you watch the Sasha Cohen Baron show "Who is America?" The funny thing here is that he didn't have to do much at all for the crazy gun fans to come out with such ludicrous ideas. 

CYDdharta

ZeusAres42 said:

@CYDdharta

The key fact that you're ignoring is that guns are often used to thwart crime, up to 3+ million times per year; terrorism is not.

That's a wild accusation.

Take it up with the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. The quote comes directly from their research.

Regardless, your passing of the issue still does not justify the rational as to why you don't think anything should be done about gun crime that causes either homicides or casualties (which is still in the thousands no matter how you want to look at it). Again, gun related homicides still amount to far more more than deaths occuring from acts of terrorism. Your own stance is that because the figures are so small in comparison to the overall increasing population of the US nothing should be done. Therefore it should follow that you also hold this same view in regards to extreme acts of terrorism which are rare, and many more times rare than gun-related homicides.  And there is nothing you can to do justify this unless you actually changed your own stance.

Your argument in logical form:

Premise 1: "There are thousands of gun-related homicides every year in the USA.

Premise 2: "The USA consists of more than three hundred million people,"

Premise 3: "These are small figures in comparison to the overall US population."

Conclusion: "Therefore nothing needs to be done about gun-related homicides."

This is not a very strong argument at all in my opinion, howbeit is one that I used to hold.

The problem is this error in objectives.  No, I don't think anything needs to be done about gun crime.  No, we don't need to do anything about mass murders.  These are pointless subsets of the real issue. What we need to do is reduce violent crime and murders.  When we do that we'll reduce gun crime and mass murders. Focusing on the weapon used is pointless.  Four times as many people were killed with knives and cutting instruments in 2017 than were killed with rifles (which includes assault rifles).  Almost twice as many were punched and kicked to death.  No gun control legislation is ever going to change that stat.  

...and stop ignoring the crimes that are thwarted by law abiding gun owners.  "Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence".

CYDdharta

ZeusAres42 said:

Have you got anything that is actually on topic and follows on from what I said in reference to government tyranny?

My statement was DIRECTLY on point with your flawed theory of government tyranny.

ZeusAres42

  My statement was DIRECTLY on point with your flawed theory of government tyranny.

Well, I've asked this question although I am predicting an avoidance of the issue as that's what I've got mostly from you so far with respect to other questions.

...and stop ignoring the crimes that are thwarted by law abiding gun owners.  "Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence".

This is basically another way of saying what I said to you; this is becoming like some kind of tit for tat, and I think the most sensible approach to do here is just to agree to disagree? I am sure you are a very likable person and there are mostly certain many things we can agree on, even some gun related stuff possibly. I hold no grudges against you for your stance on gun-related homicides or the rarer acts of terrorism for that matter, no matter how fallacious your arguments actually may be.

Although I am almost certain that there will be many other things of which we can agree on in the future please forgive me if I no longer respond as I don't think that will be of any use since I do believe we have reached an impasse.

However, I do look forward to future discussion with you surrounding other things.

CYDdharta

ZeusAres42 said:

  My statement was DIRECTLY on point with your flawed theory of government tyranny.

Well, I've asked this question although I am predicting an avoidance of the issue as that's what I've got mostly from you so far with respect to other questions.

Your initial statement was;

If government tyranny is your concern then you better start campaigning to acquire the exact amount of firepower as that of the US military because that is what you are going to need in the event of this highly improbable event.

The Taliban was little more than a bunch of guys with guns, but the US is going to cut and run from Afghanistan long before they give up.  Firepower is a great force multiplier, but determination is more important.

billbatard

I think I have found a very good compromise ... to promote safety and preserve the ability of gun enthusiasts who are truly responsible to won dangerous weapons reclassify al ahndguns and all semi automatic self loading long guns under title 2 problem solved and no one is happy but many lives are saved If https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons

CYDdharta

billbatard said:

I think I have found a very good compromise ... to promote safety and preserve the ability of gun enthusiasts who are truly responsible to won dangerous weapons reclassify al ahndguns and all semi automatic self loading long guns under title 2 problem solved and no one is happy but many lives are saved If https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons

You'd have to repeal the 2nd Amendment first.

MayCaesar

ZeusAres42 said:

Many things are possible but, only very few are actually probable and among them is the concept of government tyranny. And if anyone thinks that they could take on the US Military with mere handguns and assault weapons in the improbable event of government tyranny then they really are morons.

Have you ever followed any coup in human history? 99% successful coups against governments start with a bunch of guys getting upset over something, and soon the entire nation and the majority of the army siding with them.

The guns are mostly needed only to start the chain reaction. The US military is very likely to side with the rebels in case the cause is just. But if people have no guns, then there is nothing to start. That is why in most nations rebellions are initiated by rogue groups within the army, rather than common citizens. And that is why those coups tend to end with a fresh military dictatorship installed. You do not want that, trust me.

TKDB

@billbatard

"require a federal fire arms license for all hand guns and semi automatic long guns"

Being that there are 393 million guns in the United States, already, and millions of them have their serial numbers already erased from the very frames of those guns, and are already in circulation by the illegal gun seller, and the criminals, and offenders, are illegally buying them up, when made available to them at their individual whims?

Your license idea, doesn't do those millions of illegal guns, any good, because they have already been sold, and are off and running with the career criminals, and offenders who have already bought them up.

TKDB

@billbatard

Some would prefer the 2nd Amendment unchanged, and left alone as is.

ZeusAres42

@MayCaesar

Have you ever followed any coup in human history? 99% successful coups against governments start with a bunch of guys getting upset over something, and soon the entire nation and the majority of the army siding with them.

The guns are mostly needed only to start the chain reaction. The US military is very likely to side with the rebels in case the cause is just. But if people have no guns, then there is nothing to start. That is why in most nations rebellions are initiated by rogue groups within the army, rather than common citizens. And that is why those coups tend to end with a fresh military dictatorship installed. You do not want that, trust me.

Thank you for giving me at least a somewhat reasonable response.

1. This is the 21st century and the US government have a 200 plus year track record for not having anyone needing to take up arms against them. The idea of Government Tyranny within the USA is highly improbable and the idea of anything like this happening is almost akin to fiction. This stuff allows for good movies but it really isn't reality. 
   
2. I highly doubt that the elite which encompasses a large portion of the US military is ever going to side with the average US citizen.
   
3.  Even if the US military would side with the average US citizen well they have enough firepower alone to take on the government without the intervention of the average citizen.
   
4. The possibility of an asteroid collision is more likely to happen than that of Government Tyranny. Should all efforts now be focused on surviving a collision just because of the mere possibility?
   
5. The US government have already and continue to do things that a large portion of the population do not agree with. Take The Fourth Amendment for instance that was infringed upon for a long time, later disclosed by NSA Contractor Edward Snowden in 2013.
   
6. Lastly, the idea that just because something was put in place and was relevant more than 200 years ago (AKA Appeal to Tradition) is not a strong enough premise to support the conclusion that nothing should be done to reduce the significant number of deaths and casualties occurring each year from Gun Crime in the modern day 21st century.
   

Argumentum ad antiquitatem is becoming a tiresome argument and is almost as old as the 2nd amendment itself.

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

One of the problems in the United States, is with the apparent tyranny of the career criminals, and the offenders, who committed their crimes with their illegal guns, along with the other objects that they used to assault, hurt, maim, cripple, or killed their innocent victim's with? 

Still no signs of any protesters, who could take to any of the public streets, across the country, to publicly protest the crimes, that the career criminals, offenders, and the first time offenders, have been committing for days, weeks, months, and decades now in the United States? 

I went channel surfing, and there isn't a small group of protesters, or 2 million plus protesters, getting any type of nationwide news media outlet coverage, for protesting the tyrannical crimes that have been getting committed by the career criminals, or the offenders, for a long time now?

"ty·ran·ni·cal

adjective

1. exercising power in a cruel or arbitrary way."

Or, maybe, in, a sense, some don't view the crimes, that some commit with their illegal guns, or their other weapons of choice, as they, by apparently exercising their own individualized power over another, with an illegal gun, or their own weapons of choice in their own cruel ways? 

Or, maybe, in a sense, some don't view the crimes, of the criminals, or the offenders, as in, a sense, being oppressive, dictatorial, despotic, autocratic, repressive, fascistic, tyrannous, absolute, or totalitarian, with their illegal uses, of their guns, knives, baseball bats, clubs, vehicles, and or with their probable uses of their domestic abuse, and violence tendencies? 

I guess that's why, maybe seeing a group, or 2 million plus protesters, might choose protesting some of the police officers, over maybe protesting, the career criminals, the offenders, and the first time offenders, instead, and holding them responsible for the crimes that they've been committing for days, weeks, months, and years now, against the rest of the public as a whole?  

John_C_87

“I went channel surfing, and there isn't a small group of protesters”

The biggest tyrannical protest is civil action for a woman running for President as a united state. It is a person whim without constitutional merit as its reason. Discrimination is the justification for ignoring basic principle as assuming a civil liberty on public plagiarism instead.

Second large tyrannical example is the assumption of incorporation made by same gender couple under a plagiarism of Marriage by members of the same sex who are either distinctly Binivir or UnosMulier public corporations.

Third is pregnancy abortion as it is in basic principle an admission of a crime placing a self-incrimination as a united state.

In basic principle refusing to assume an equal burden of lethal force is an exercise in power in a cruel or arbitrary way. “I do not need to be made unhappy by allowing a person to force me into shooting them. By not owning a gun I will always be able to blame some-one else for a shooting.” This is a truth that never makes it to debate.

TKDB

@John_C_87

If some of the public isnt taking to the very streets in this country to publicly protest, (the non race on race murders, and the race on race murders,) that happen everyday in a country where 393 million guns are apparently owned by the law abiding citizens, along with (being illegally owned by some of the career criminals, and the offenders, which to me, is its own brand of tyranny?

(Reiterating my previous points, because the police get protested, more than the career criminals, and the offenders do, because of the murders that the career criminals, and offenders have committed, against the public as a whole, and apparently not many, if any want to publicly hold those career criminals, or the offenders, publicly responsible for the gun violence brutality crimes, against their victims, but some of the police get protested, as a way to hold them accountable, or responsible for their actions? 

Because maybe some of the public themselves, are exercising some of their own forms of "pocket tyranny," by how they choose to treat the public as a whole? 

Via how some go about protesting "others," or how some maybe go about committing their crimes?)

"ty·ran·ni·cal

adjective

1. exercising power in a cruel or arbitrary way."

Or, maybe, in, a sense, some don't view the crimes, that some commit with their illegal guns, or their other weapons of choice, as they, by apparently exercising their own individualized power over another, with an illegal gun, or their own weapons of choice in their own cruel ways? 

Or, maybe, in a sense, some don't view the crimes, of the criminals, or the offenders, as in, a sense, being oppressive, dictatorial, despotic, autocratic, repressive, fascistic, tyrannous, absolute, or totalitarian, with their illegal uses, of their guns, knives, baseball bats, clubs, vehicles, and or with their probable uses of their domestic abuse, and violence tendencies? 

I guess that's why, maybe seeing a group, or 2 million plus protesters, might choose protesting some of the police officers, over maybe protesting, the career criminals, the offenders, and the first time offenders, instead, and holding them responsible for the crimes that they've been committing for days, weeks, months, and years now, against the rest of the public as a whole?   

John_C_87

Public protest is a type of expressed grievance.

Tyrannical exercising a power in a cruel or arbitrary way. The question for truth here is if the crime is murder, is it then arbitrary to have an additional law in place to charge after that whole truth.  The criminal should not be using any basic object as a weapon period. A gun law is a whim or choice which negates any United state of constitutional wrong as reason. A criminal buying a weapon is a crime.

As we are drifting off topic let me refocus our discussion to a constitutional application of truth as an addition to whole truth in background checks. We the people want to know when and if a criminal is in a gun shop to buy a gun. Basic principle. Instead of having a check for a background of criminal conviction at the store why is the background check not done at a state Multivehicle, there any state record can be describing a constitutional disqualification on the State Identification or license. A person is then Constitutional qualified to make this purchase or is not qualified.

TKDB

@John_C_87

You are entitled to your individual points of view.

While some of the public, who is basically refusing to protest the crimes, committed by the non race on race criminals, and offenders? 

And to protest, the crimes, committed, by the race on race criminals, and offenders, as well?

Those non protesters, not protesting those crimes, is just as educational as those protesters who choose to protest some of the Police Officer, involved shootings instead? 

As I expressed before, It's sadistally sad how these "pocket tyrannical individuals" who continue to oppress, dictate, or repress the other citizens around them, through their criminal, or offender ways? 

Instead of putting up with, or living with these individuals? 

Applesauce

@ZeusAres42

"Can you please elaborate as to why you think this is absurd and how you are so convinced that everyone else thinks this is beyond absurd? Or is this just the way feel in response to what you read; if it is the latter then that is your opinion and that's fine. "

unless someone has actually committed a crime and as a result it is determined the individual is too dangerous to own guns, this idea of pre judging and attempting to determine if someone COULD be potentially dangerous in the future is making a determination of guilt w/o due process.  If you've never seen the movie "Minority Report" I would suggest you watch it, it's not bad but the other all theme is interesting imo.
But anyway what criteria would be used?  Having government mandated diagnosing for people to exercise their rights very Orwellying.  This is not a power that should be given to the government.

billbatard

@CYDdharta if you truly were law abiding that would not bother you

CYDdharta

billbatard said:

@CYDdharta if you truly were law abiding that would not bother you

If you were actually concerned about shootings, you'd propose something that actually dealt with crime and criminals. 

billbatard

@CYDdharta guns are not toys the second amendment gives states the right to fomr a national gaurd and if you want a gun you have to get a license and register it

CYDdharta

billbatard said:

@CYDdharta guns are not toys the second amendment gives states the right to fomr a national gaurd and if you want a gun you have to get a license and register it

Of course they're not toys.  People couldn't defend themselves and the lives of the innocents around them with toys.  That's why the right of The People to protect themselves was enshrined in the 2nd Amendment.

TKDB

@Applesauce

How are you making an argument based on the premise, of a science fiction movie, about a made up hypothetical situation?

"unless someone has actually committed a crime and as a result it is determined the individual is too dangerous to own guns, this idea of pre judging and attempting to determine if someone COULD be potentially dangerous in the future is making a determination of guilt w/o due process.  If you've never seen the movie "Minority Report" I would suggest you watch it, it's not bad but the other all theme is interesting imo.
But anyway what criteria would be used?  Having government mandated diagnosing for people to exercise their rights very Orwellying.  This is not a power that should be given to the government."

To make your argument?

Criminals and offenders, have been judging their individual victims with their illegally purchased guns for how many decades now? 

Via murder, sexual assaults, armed robberies, carjackings, kidnappings, abductions, domestic abuse, and violence situations, and the mass shooters, and their mass shootings gun violence brutality? 

There were gangs, and mobsters back in the day using submachine guns, the same apparent, submachine guns, that were used in WW2? 

It's mind boggling, how individuals come up with some of their individual arguments?

In the very country that has more guns, than any other country has?

In the very country, that has more guns, that are outnumbering, its very own citizens? 

393 million guns, with the roughly 900,000 Police Officers in the middle, along with the rest of the US citizens, who don't maybe own a gun, or a collection of guns, in comparison to the various numbers of guns, with their serial numbers missing, that was sold by an illegal gun dealer, and is now illegally in the hands of the criminals, and offenders? 

Because maybe their illegal guns, maybe means more to the criminals, and the offenders, than the rest of the humanity means to the criminal, or the offender?

While the pro gun individuals, use the 2nd Amendment to protect, the very guns, that they own, and utilize their pro gun talking points, to defend their view of the 2nd Amendment, and their individual gun collections as well?

While the law abiding citizens, and the Police Officers in general, get to deal with the illegal gun toting criminal, or offender, who wants to commit crimes against their next probable victims?

While some of the Police Officers, deal with the various citizens, or criminals, or offenders, who go about balking, or refuse to do as a Police Officer, or Officers, instructors the various citizens, or criminals, or offenders to do, after they have maybe committed a crime, and the Police Officer, or Officers, are trying to get a scene figured out, after a crime, has happened, or was occurring?

Isn't it tragic, and sad, how guns in general are affecting the United States as whole, because some are maybe enabling, and  perpetuating those illegal actions to be able to occur, because of how they view the sale and purchase of an illegal weapon, by maybe who those illegal gun, or guns, are being sold to? 

So who is maybe more culpable, the illegal gun dealer, or the way the 2nd Amendment is written in its current form? 

John_C_87

CYDdharta said:

billbatard said:

@CYDdharta if you truly were law abiding that would not bother you

If you were actually concerned about shootings, you'd propose something that actually dealt with crime and criminals. 

@CYDdharta ;
How does that hold any truth shootings as a united state in not all a crime. Law is governing that directs a person can not train independently on skill without breaking the law making them criminal for wanting to hold the constitutions common defense from civil burdens of lethal force.

John_C_87

TKDB said:

@John_C_87

You are entitled to your individual points of view.

@TKDB ;

No TKDB the point of view it is a truth, looking for whole truth add if you can please. A background check is intrusive, we are on the topic of gun negligence and death. This sets a goal for whole truth in the collecting of nothing but truth, part of this collection is that a person who does not hold the burden of lethal force equally becomes negligent in events of public mass shootings.

 This burden needs to be addressed to set an equality between all people armed with a gun and unarmed. There is an undertone of taxation without representation by means of insurance settlements at work in the background of this discussion. Much like those in Medicine. Returning fire stops incoming fire the other option is to draw fire away from as many people as possible. This basic principle and legal precedent often now reflects a choice of civil public action, even though more than likely is hindered by legally obstacles. This negligence is separated by judicial separation in representation of public mass shootings in many settlements of issues, at the least in many criminal proceedings if not both civil and criminal. Developing a system of governing by vote that democratically shifts the burden of lethal force to one side is wrong.

One: ballistic shield addresses this inequality in part by saying  okay there is no need for only actions with a gun now be handled by those with guns. Equally here is the public chance ballistic shield. There is a chance for those who chose to offer means of drawling fire or escape equally to do so.

Two: adding a qualification to the drivers licensing and state I.D. process creates a more efficient method of identification to something that has an all-around efficient result is solving multiple issue against united state constitutional states of union. The union is between basic principle and legal finding and how it effects the common defense to a general welfare.

TKDB

@John_C_87

You're entitled to your opinion.

And the below is the Truth, that I see, that has been plaguing, the public, law enforcement, and the laws of this country, when it comes to the gun violence brutality crimes, committed by tbe career criminals, and the offenders, and the actions, of the illegal gun dealer, for decades now?:

Criminals and offenders, have been judging their individual victims with their illegally purchased guns for how many decades now? 

Via murder, sexual assaults, armed robberies, carjackings, kidnappings, abductions, domestic abuse, and violence situations, and the mass shooters, and their mass shootings gun violence brutality? 

There were gangs, and mobsters back in the day using submachine guns, the same apparent, submachine guns, that were used in WW2? 

It's mind boggling, how individuals come up with some of their individual arguments?

In the very country that has more guns, than any other country has?

In the very country, that has more guns, that are outnumbering, its very own citizens? 

393 million guns, with the roughly 900,000 Police Officers in the middle, along with the rest of the US citizens, who don't maybe own a gun, or a collection of guns, in comparison to the various numbers of guns, with their serial numbers missing, that was sold by an illegal gun dealer, and is now illegally in the hands of the criminals, and offenders? 

Because maybe their illegal guns, maybe means more to the criminals, and the offenders, than the rest of the humanity means to the criminal, or the offender?

While the pro gun individuals, use the 2nd Amendment to protect, the very guns, that they own, and utilize their pro gun talking points, to defend their view of the 2nd Amendment, and their individual gun collections as well?

While the law abiding citizens, and the Police Officers in general, get to deal with the illegal gun toting criminal, or offender, who wants to commit crimes against their next probable victims?

While some of the Police Officers, deal with the various citizens, or criminals, or offenders, who go about balking, or refuse to do as a Police Officer, or Officers, instructors the various citizens, or criminals, or offenders to do, after they have maybe committed a crime, and the Police Officer, or Officers, are trying to get a scene figured out, after a crime, has happened, or was occurring?

Isn't it tragic, and sad, how guns in general are affecting the United States as whole, because some are maybe enabling, and  perpetuating those illegal actions to be able to occur, because of how they view the sale and purchase of an illegal weapon, by maybe who those illegal gun, or guns, are being sold to? 

So who is maybe more culpable, the illegal gun dealer, or the way the 2nd Amendment is written in its current form?  

TKDB

@CYDdharta

What about the rights of the victims, who the criminals, and offenders took away from their victims, via their gun violence brutality crimes? 

Is your desire to own a gun via the 2nd Amendment, maybe more important than the rights, of the millions of the citizens in the United States who didn't deserve to be victimized by the criminals, and or the offenders, with their illegally owned guns, by having crimes committed by those same criminals, and offenders? 

What are your words of defense for them? 

Maybe go purchase, a gun?

What if those citizens, don't maintain, the same pro gun owning philosophy that you've engrained yourself with?

kevin_burke

@TKDB
I am pro gun. And the real question isn't are my 2nd amendment rights more important than the rights of other citizens. But rather, Why are my 2nd amendment rights important to the rights of others? 
If someone wants to shoot up a place no law is going to stop them from going and getting an illegal gun. Laws don't stop addicts from getting drugs. And from my experience with the law enforcement guns are just as easy to get as things like crack, cocaine and meth.
But when access to sophisticated firearms are easily accessible and legal then both the respectful citizen and the insane are going to have that gun. When if it was illegal the insane would only have it because laws don't matter to them. 
The real answer to stopping gun related crime is freeing up the laws on firearms for people above 18 and publicizing that we are doing so everywhere. (On school grounds only staff carry)(And fully automatic firearms and combative explosives should be illegal). The reason I say we need to publicize this  is because as we saw with the theater shooter he was going theater to theater shooting everyone. But he didn't stop at the theater that publicized that is was pro gun. So we free up the laws crime will decrease and if something does happen there will be more people willing and able to stop it.

John_C_87

TKDB

You are moving around in many directions and when answered with truth people find any discussion hard to follow. A truth, the police officer cannot be in the middle as they are sworn to serve and protect the United States Constitution by the placement of their position in the public. Meaning the truth is self-evident and need not be written. Police officers are always on the side of United States Constitution not law enforcement. The fact as a group we are unwilling to share law enforcement in the general public takes away any chance of forming a united state around it. This is part of the basic principle why a lawyer is licensed to fabricate justice by law enforcement. The road to whole truth is long and winding with many turns and dead ends. There is a basic separation in constitutional order at that many points.

Truth guns can easily be manufactured without serial numbers since the 1800. A person has a United States Constitutional right in gun ownership, even if they have been falsely instructed otherwise or know otherwise. The 2nd Amendment is a voice in grievance to act as one united state without being labeled a militia specifically. An encompasses truth of its own merits to gun ownership. This includes recreationally shooting for relaxation, shooting for mathematics education, competitive shooting, undertaking of common civil legal defense in use of lethal force for a military and police force, survival shooting, and other truths not listed.

Here is a basic truth. Urinating can create dysentery and we can die. We do not make drinking juice and soda illegal as it increases the need to urinate. We do not make drinking water illegal as it will make us sick and kill us. We reduce the cause of dysentery. Basic truth we need a gun to live if not for any other reason than a person can simply just kill us with their hand. Making hands illegal does not change the truth about the use of hands by anyone, those hands can still be used to kill.

Basic principle people don’t stop bullets ballistic shields abort a shooting.

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

@CYDdharta

What about the rights of the victims, who the criminals, and offenders took away from their victims, via their gun violence brutality crimes? 

Is your desire to own a gun via the 2nd Amendment, maybe more important than the rights, of the millions of the citizens in the United States who didn't deserve to be victimized by the criminals, and or the offenders, with their illegally owned guns, by having crimes committed by those same criminals, and offenders? 

Yes, my right to own a gun is more important than other peoples' desires to not be victimized.  My right is spelled out in the Constitution.  There is no right not to be victimized.

What are your words of defense for them? 

Maybe go purchase, a gun?

What if those citizens, don't maintain, the same pro gun owning philosophy that you've engrained yourself with?

Sage advice.  If they don't want to protect themselves, they're free to be victims.

TKDB

@CYDdharta

"Yes, my right to own a gun is more important than other peoples' desires to not be victimized.  My right is spelled out in the Constitution.  There is no right not to be victimized."

Maybe with the way the 2nd Amendment is written, it's a probable failure of words, when it comes to the written words of the Civil Rights of the United States? 

And those criminals, and offenders, who have killed, kids, parents, single adults, and senior citizens alike, along with the gun illegal gun street dealers, aren't they maybe in violation of their victims civil rights, being that they victimized their innocent victims, via the illegal use of their illegal guns, yes or no? 

Do you have a single quote, where the 2nd Amendment, is able to defend the civil rights, of those that don't own guns, like you legally own, and the criminals, and offenders, illegally own? 

(What are your words of defense for them? 

Maybe go purchase, a gun?

What if those citizens, don't maintain, the same pro gun owning philosophy that you've engrained yourself with?)

"Sage advice.  If they don't want to protect themselves, they're free to be victims."

Who are you, to maybe tell, the people who don't own a gun, how to live their lives from the perception of your individual pro gun stance? 

You have given me an unprecedented education, on how a gun owner, may view the public, through the very perception of their individual pro gun mindset? 

TKDB

@John_C_87

You are entitled to your individual opinion, I wish you a good day sir.

TKDB

From Wikipedia:

"Since the Constitution came into force in 1789, it has been amended 27 times, including an amendment to repeal a previous one,[4] in order to meet the needs of a nation that has profoundly changed since the eighteenth century.[5] In general, the first ten amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, offer specific protections of individual liberty and justice and place restrictions on the powers of government.[6][7] The majority of the seventeen later amendments expand individual civil rights protections. Others address issues related to federal authority or modify government processes and procedures. Amendments to the United States Constitution, unlike ones made to many constitutions worldwide, are appended to the document. All four pages[8] of the original U.S. Constitution are written on parchment.[9]

According to the United States Senate: "The Constitution's first three words—We the People—affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens. For over two centuries the Constitution has remained in force because its framers wisely separated and balanced governmental powers to safeguard the interests of majority rule and minority rights, of liberty and equality, and of the federal and state governments."[5]

The first permanent constitution of its kind,[a]adopted by the people's representatives for an expansive nation, it is interpreted, supplemented, and implemented by a large body of constitutional law, and has influenced the constitutions of other nations."

I think that the "Second Amendment," should be amended, "in order to meet the needs of a nation, that has profoundly changed since the eighteenth century."

The U.S. Constitution has been amended 27 times, including an amendment to repeal a previous one.

kevin_burke

@TKDB
First off for your future references don't use Wikipedia it isn't a trusted source. I'm not saying what is written is fallacy I'm just saying Wikipedia isn't the best source.
Second off a majority of our founding fathers were scholars of their time so there isn't a failure of words, especially because they had to go back several times to revise the bill of rights so as to get all the states on board. They put in the 2nd amendment to protect the victims so as not to see our individuals or our country as a whole fall victim to an oppressor because the oppressor had access to tools of safety that they did not. So when someone is giving up their right to bear arms they are willing subjecting themselves to the oppressors. Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Third off as you said the criminals tend to illegally on their weapons so why would more laws stop them, it won't, it only makes the law abiding citizen more easily victimized.
Lastly, we are not telling them how to live their lives, though we may believe it is an illogical choice to not practice their second amendment right it is their right to do so. The only thing we insist on is that they don't try and make laws that restrict our second amendment right, because in doing this they are making us more vulnerable to victimization. 

TKDB

From Wikipedia:

"The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4]

In the 2008 Heller decision, the Supreme Courtaffirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, exclusively for self-defense in the home,[5][6][7][8] while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."[9][10]State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right.[11]

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common lawand was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[12] "

And I do not see one visible instance, where the Second Amendment, was written as to defend the Bill of Rights of the unarmed citizens, unlike the armed citizens? 

So, it would appear to be a failure on an amendment to protect, the overall Bill of Rights, or the civil rights of those citizens who don't lawfully own a gun, like the lawful gun owners do?

So please refrain, from framing the (unarmed citizens, as possible future victims,) because they failed to arm themselves with a gun, like the lawful gun owners have done, and then to in a sense chastize them, from the gun owners perspective, for not arming themselves?

Thus allowing themselves to become victimized by the illegal gun toting criminal, or offender, because some citizens can be viewed that way by a lawful gun owner? 

One could likely view that kind of a tone, as a patronizing tone, towards the unarmed citizens, by a gun owning citizen? 

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

@CYDdharta

"Yes, my right to own a gun is more important than other peoples' desires to not be victimized.  My right is spelled out in the Constitution.  There is no right not to be victimized."

Maybe with the way the 2nd Amendment is written, it's a probable failure of words, when it comes to the written words of the Civil Rights of the United States? 

And those criminals, and offenders, who have killed, kids, parents, single adults, and senior citizens alike, along with the gun illegal gun street dealers, aren't they maybe in violation of their victims civil rights, being that they victimized their innocent victims, via the illegal use of their illegal guns, yes or no?

No doubt some of those offenders are guilty of civil rights violations, that's why they're sued in civil courts.  What does that have to do with anything?

Do you have a single quote, where the 2nd Amendment, is able to defend the civil rights, of those that don't own guns, like you legally own, and the criminals, and offenders, illegally own? 

Such uses are exceedingly rare, as they should be.  Such uses are almost never justified.  Civilian-owned firearms should be used for hunting, recreation, and self defense; not for enforcing the Fair Housing Act or the Voter Rights Act, such uses should be left to law enforcement agencies.  

(What are your words of defense for them? 

Maybe go purchase, a gun?

What if those citizens, don't maintain, the same pro gun owning philosophy that you've engrained yourself with?)

"Sage advice.  If they don't want to protect themselves, they're free to be victims."

If people don't want to defend themselves and want to be victims, that's their right. 

Who are you, to maybe tell, the people who don't own a gun, how to live their lives from the perception of your individual pro gun stance?

Who are you, to maybe tell, the people who own a gun, how to live their lives from the perception of your individual anti gun stance?

TKDB

@CYDdharta

"Who are you, to maybe tell, the people who own a gun, how to live their lives from the perception of your individual anti gun stance?"

Show me one instance, where I told you how to live your life, because you own a weapon?

I'm pro Second Amendment.

I'm pro Bill of Rights.

I'm also pro kids, pro parents, pro single individuals, and pro senior citizens, because some of whom, who have been shot, hurt, maimed, crippled, or killed by a lawful gun owner, and some of the criminals, and the offenders, who used their guns, to kill some of their victims with? 

Day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year without fail.

Because the Second Amendment, as its currently written, seems to maybe in a sense, not address the Bill of Rights, when it comes to addressing those rights violations, in the face of the very laws that makes those crimes illegal? 

kevin_burke

@TKDB
 I'm also pro kids, pro parents, pro single individuals, and pro senior citizens, because some of whom, who have been shot, hurt, maimed, crippled, or killed by a lawful gun owner, and some of the criminals, and the offenders, who used their guns, to kill some of their victims with?  

The guns didn't shoot them the person did.

The failure to amend the Second Amendment, is a tragic reality, that the police officers, and the rest of the public gets to live with, because of the unlawful uses of both the legal guns, and illegal guns. Changing the second amendment to make it stricter will won't stop the use illegal guns. It won't effect the amount of gun violence. it will increase the amount of illegal gun use.

TKDB

@kevin_burke

"The guns didn't shoot them the person did."

Yes, the guns, did shoot the victims, because the criminals, or offenders used their guns to commit their crimes with.

Ballistics, and forensics, are used to prove that.

"Changing the second amendment to make it stricter will won't stop the use illegal guns. It won't effect the amount of gun violence. it will increase the amount of illegal gun use."

No, not with a country that has more guns, than it has citizens in it?

393 million guns, to 325 million U.S. citizens.

We're being endangered by some, who apparently self value their gun, or guns, more than they fail to value some of the very humanity, that is pretty much around all of us at one time of another, during our daily lives?

The Second Amendment should be changed, to reflect the troubled modern day and age that we are all being affected by via the gun violence brutality crimes.

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

@CYDdharta


I'm also pro kids, pro parents, pro single individuals, and pro senior citizens, because some of whom, who have been shot, hurt, maimed, crippled, or killed by a lawful gun owner, and some of the criminals, and the offenders, who used their guns, to kill some of their victims with?

The only kids, parents, single individuals, and senior citizens, who have been shot, hurt, maimed, crippled, or killed by a lawful gun owner were the kids, parents, single individuals, and senior citizens who were committing violent crimes. That being the case, they got what they deserved.

kevin_burke

@TKDB ;
You obviously you aren't hearing us.  Because you strip parts of our arguments down to a place where by themselves they are weak but you need to take our arguments as a whole. If you wish to bring up points that have been previously brought to the light look back on our arguments and you will find where we addressed them. Thank you and good day.

TKDB

@kevin_burke

"You obviously like to hear yourself. You are refusing to hear anyone's side. Because you strip parts of our arguments down to a place where by themselves they are weak but you need to take our arguments as a whole. If you wish to bring up points that have been previously brought to the light look back on our arguments and you will find where we addressed them. Thank you and good day."

I went to the March For Our Lives rally in D.C. last year.

And I watched and listened to some of the same students who survived a murdering mass shooters gun violence brutality that had their lives changed forever, and the families lives forever, because a human with a gun, killed some of the students, and teachers who were at their school.

They protested gun violence in real life, and told a quarter of a million people who went to the rally how they felt, how they were affected by the mass shooters gun violence brutality, and to inform, and educate those with open minds, and hearts, to hear their words, without judgement or condemnation, from those who didn't agree with them protesting gun violence in public, in D.C.?

The news has been talking about the various mass shooters gun violence brutality, like this individual shooter, Charles Whitman, who committed his crime, in Texas? 

Here is the information, to educate anyone who wants to read about another episode, in regards to the gun violence brutality conversation? 

From Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

"Charles Joseph Whitman (June 24, 1941 – August 1, 1966) was an American mass murderer who became infamous as the "Texas Tower Sniper." On August 1, 1966, he used knives in the slayings of his mother and his wife in their respective homes and then went to the University of Texas in Austin with multiple firearms and began indiscriminately shooting at people. He fatally shot three people inside the university tower. He then went to the tower's 28th-floor observation deck, where he fired at random people for some 96 minutes, killing an additional 11 people, including an unborn child, and wounding 31 others before he was shot dead by Austin police officer Houston McCoy. Whitman killed a total of 17 people; the 17th victim died 35 years later from injuries sustained in the attack.[2][3][4][5] "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho

"Seung-Hui Cho (조승희 in Korean, properly Cho Seung-Hui;[1] January 18, 1984 – April 16, 2007) was a South Korean-born spree killer and mass murdererwho killed 32 people and wounded 17 others when he was armed with two semi-automatic pistols on April 16, 2007, at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.[2] An additional six people were injured jumping from windows to escape.[3] Cho was a senior-levelundergraduate student at the university. The shooting rampage came to be known as the Virginia Tech shooting.[4][5] Cho committed suicide after police breached the doors of the building where most of the shooting had taken place. His body is buried in Fairfax, Virginia. "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

"The Sandy Hook Elementary School shootingoccurred on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, United States, when 20-year-old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children between six and seven years old, and six adult staff members. Before driving to the school, he shot and killed his mother at their Newtown home. As first responders arrived at the school, Lanza committed suicide by shooting himself in the head."

"The incident was the deadliest mass shooting at either a high school or grade school in U.S. history and the fourth-deadliest mass shooting by a single person in U.S. history.[a] The shooting prompted renewed debate about gun control in the United States, including proposals to make the background-check system universal, and for new federal and state gun legislation banning the sale and manufacture of certain types of semi-automatic firearms and magazines with more than ten rounds of ammunition.

A November 2013 report issued by the Connecticut State Attorney's office concluded that Lanza acted alone and planned his actions, but provided no indication why he did so, or why he targeted the school. A report issued by the Office of the Child Advocate in November 2014 said that Lanza had Asperger's syndrome and as a teenager suffered from depression, anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder, but concluded that they had "neither caused nor led to his murderous acts." The report went on to say, "his severe and deteriorating internalized mental health problems ... combined with an atypical preoccupation with violence ... (and) access to deadly weapons ... proved a recipe for mass murder".[18] "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

"The Columbine High School massacre was a school shooting that occurred on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School in Columbine, Colorado, United States.[1][2][n 1] The perpetrators, twelfth grade(senior) students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, murdered 12 students and one teacher. Ten students were killed in the library, where the pair subsequently committed suicide. At the time, it was the deadliest shooting at a high school in United States history. The crime has inspired several copycats, and "Columbine" has become a byword for a school shooting."

"The two perpetrators injured 21 additional people with gunshots and also exchanged gunfire with the police. Another three people were injured trying to escape the school. In addition to the shootings, the attack involved several homemade bombs. The largest of these were placed in the cafeteria; car bombs were also placed in the parking lot and at another location that was intended to divert first responders.

The motive remains unclear, but the pair planned the crime for about a year and wished for the massacre to rival the Oklahoma City bombing and cause the most deaths in United States history. USA Todayreferred to the attack as "planned as a grand, if badly implemented, terrorist bombing."[5]

The police were slow to enter the school, and they were heavily criticized for not intervening during the shooting. The incident resulted in the introduction of the Immediate Action Rapid Deployment tactic, which is used in situations where an active shooter is trying to kill people rather than take hostages. Columbine also resulted in an increased emphasis on school security with zero tolerance policies. Debates were sparked over gun control laws and gun culture, high school cliques, subcultures, and bullying. Also discussed were the moral panic over goths, social outcasts, the use of pharmaceutical antidepressantsby teenagers, teenage Internet use and violence in video games. "

The above individuals, their stories, speak for themselves, and how anyone, may view their stories in relation to their pro gun views, or their pro public views, is dependent upon the individual, interpretating the individual stories, to the very core, of who they are inside of themselves.

Would it be fair to say, that the above historical stories, tell both sides of each story, on their own? 

TKDB

@kevin_burke

Exactly, who is the "us," that you are referring to? 

"You obviously you aren't hearing us."