Proposals on how to tackle the issue of gun related crime

kevin_burke

@TKDB
What those students and others like them suffered was horrible injustice. But, they and their peers suffered at the hands of one man. And I can't believe that stricter gun laws wouldn't have stopped these murderers. But what I do believe is that looser gun laws would have made it easier for a gun to have landed in the hand of the right man who could have stopped these men if he had been there at the time. 
Idid revise my statement because it was very confrontational for that I apologize and the us is me and anyone who is looking at this problem through my prospective.

TKDB

@kevin_burke

"But what I do believe is that looser gun laws would have made it easier for a gun to have landed in the hand of the right man who could have stopped these men if he had been there at the time."

(For a gun to have landed in the hand of the right man who could have stopped these men if he had been there at the time.)

The above is what is called "pro gun owner thinking," a self defense thought process that is used to defend the gun owners guns, and using the same defense, to defend the Second Amendment as it was written back in the 18th century, and is not currently reflective of the 21st century, reflecting the existence of the 393 million guns, where the human population is roughly 325 million.

The Second Amendment should be amended.

John_C_87

So why do you claim it is opinion and not a truth that has been unknown or not expressed for some reason for equality?

Truth is constitution is a word describing a combination of basic principle and legal precedent. In truth law is only a part of legal precedent as a whole truth. While the United States Constitution is a collection of states which are united, then brought together, assembled as a basic right. Right not wrong, basics. The protection is in an understanding that all men are created equal by their creator. As all woman are created equal by their creator. This basic truth does not change in history.

The introduction of fact and truth of the United States Constitution states We the people of united State, in order to form a more perfect union( Between basic principle and legal precedent), Establish justice( It is a creation waiting on a creator of its construction) insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, etc. The Amendments of the United State have for the most part been established to expedite a basic separation of said basic principle and legal precedent, too through united impartial separation allow a creation of established justice. As justice is not a shared United State in whole truth, for all people, meaning one side will always need the common defense of any argument that is clearly two sided displays an understanding to concede, meaning not to receive justice but reprimand, or order to stop progression.

The united State is the impartiality created by basic application of constitution by the separation of the two ingredients, which need to be in place for constitution itself to exist, Legal Precedent and Basic principle.  The 2nd Amendment does not end the original reasons of fact, truth, or whole truth in preamble as common defense being a right to own a gun. The debate must address the legalities on gun legislation and the legalities of the legal civil liability of mass shooting place on victims who may refuse to hold equal burden of lethal force, due to religious conviction, trauma, or simple whim not to take life when their own is jeopardized.

In order to have some-one kill on your behalf in basic principle you must demonstrate an ability to provide the same service as the cost to any equality. This is an introduction of basic principle TKDB to the debate. It is a truth, it is a whole truth.

John_C_87

From basic principle we can apply the idea of precedent as basic principle as not all precedent set by written law itself need be the focus constant side of a scale set in Constitutional meaning. The cup which is used to hold an object to be measured can be exchanged. Fires set a precedent of fire detection and fire fighting tools to locations where fire occurs. Basic principle. Therefore, the expansion of idea is to bring shields against bullets to areas which are more likely to be poor candidate for the application of complete common defense as conditional equality meaning guns.

The fear here is that the shield then can be used by an attacker as a common defense as well.

John_C_87

simple said legal precedent can be a basic principle on the scale of Constitution in the hands of justice.

TKDB

@John_C_87

@CYDdharta

@kevin_burke

@Zombieguy1987

Why the Second Amendment should be amended to reflect the 21st century, because of medical marijuana use, and gun ownership at the same time?

This article is from 2018: 

https://www-greenentrepreneur-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.greenentrepreneur.com/amphtml/324630?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.greenentrepreneur.com/article/324630

"LEGAL ISSUES

In Some States, Medical Marijuana Users Must Choose Between Ganja or a Gun"

"A bizarre, new legal issue has emerged in recent months that may leave those wishing to use medical marijuana having to choose between using pot or owning a gun.

That’s because federal law in the United States still lists marijuana as an illegal drug. And under federal law, it’s a crime if someone in possession of an illegal drug also possesses a firearm."

"Welcome to yet another reel around the thorny bush of federal vs. state marijuana laws. While an increasing number of states have legalized marijuana, the federal government refuses to budge. As a result, even common sense issues about the plant are cloaked in confusion.

Guns and Marijuana in Missouri, Pennsylvania

The latest example of the gun vs. pot issue is in Missouri, where state voters approved a ballot proposal to amend the state constitution and legalize medical marijuana in the Show Me State.

The ballots had barely been counted when the gun issue reared its controversial head."

The amendment, called New Approach Missouri, included provisions to protect the right to own a firearm and use medical marijuana. However, a spokesperson for the campaign told KAIT TV 8 out of Jonesboro, Ark., that  "unfortunately just like the other 32 states that have a medical marijuana program, there are some federal laws that do complicate that.”

"Those complications also have arisen in Pennsylvania, where medical marijuana is legal. When Dr. Matthew Roman -- a practicing physician in Philadelphia who uses medical marijuana -- went to a south Philadelphia gun shop to buy a handgun for self-defense, he was asked if he used marijuana. When he told the gun dealer he did, he was told that he couldn’t be sold a gun. “The doc answered that question truthfully. And the dealer said, ‘I can’t sell you a gun,’” the physician’s attorney told the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Dr. Roman has sued the U.S. Department of Justice, saying not selling him a gun denied his Second and Fifth Amendment rights."

"What The Law Says

So, what does the law actually say? The Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives put out a memo years ago that outlined the provisions. According to the memo:

• Federal law prohibits any person who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from shipping, receiving or possessing firearms or ammunition.
• Federal law places marijuana among Schedule I illegal drugs, the highest level possible and on par with heroin and LSD
• There “are no exceptions” for those who use medical marijuana, “even if such use is sanctioned by state law.”

Roman’s attorney said the wiggle room in the law could be the nature of a regulated medical marijuana market. For example, the fact that a person must enter a state program, get an ID card and a doctor’s prescription for marijuana indicates they are not using marijuana in an “unlawful” way."

"That’s just speculation, of course, until the lawsuit is resolved. And while the memo is a few years old, the ATF still holds the same position, spokesman John Ham told the TV station in Jonesboro.

“Whether you cross state lines or not, it would be a violation of federal law for you to be in possession of the gun if you are a user of marijuana," he said, adding that ATF will enforce federal law “until there is a change to federal law either with marijuana being on the controlled substances list or a change to federal firearms law.” 

Here's the rough if it, apparently, some of the gun owners, who might indulge in medical marijuana, are apparently wanting their way, not only with the Second Amendment, but with, the Fifth Amendment as well? 

So again, yes, the Second Amendment, should be reflective of how some are treating the 21st century, via their lawful, and or illegal gun use, and their medical marijuana use, while being a probable gun owner at the same time? 

John_C_87

Okay, first off in whole truth we cannot pass a law to legalize. It is a contradiction of the basic principle of judicial separation of legal precedent and basic principle to establish whole truth. Simply said as unconstitutional. We are separating by basis of right and wrong, it is the object to voice a wrong to others to set to seek whole truth by introduction of truth. Here again self-evident instruction by axiom of GOD.

Second there is no such thing as Medical Marijuana unless you are talking genetically enhances marijuana as a truth it is a plant with flowers. Remember truth and whole truth are to be used to find nothing but truth.

Third by law marijuana itself would be legal by precedent set as we have hemp rope which is marijuana and though posses threat to life by its miss use is sold anyway, cloth, etc. many other things which can be made from marijuana. Other than feeling. Making the legislation which states in writing marijuana is illegal should be restructured in how it sets consumption as unsafe in tune with precedent. This is/was the purpose of all legislation to start as united state meaning many jobs had been performed half a$$ed. The public consumption of marijuana is a freedom of religion before all other accusation. This is provable, with a long history, as a shared public belief, idea, social recreation without cost or self-value expressed among some whole consume it. This was done as a civil liberty and is precedented by alcohol in this way.

There are many ways in which a driven motivation for money can be connected to death with drugs and the War waged, both the medical and public use will not spend much time on much thought for the common defense for a general welfare. This is precedented by civil action not holding the person who does not own a gun accountable for the contribution this negligence makes in mass shootings. The fear of having to kill forces a person to make others perform that task as an employee in the payment of taxation. Wrong!

Going even deeper medical Marijuana cannot be legislated as legal option as abortion is an admission to murder. And is placed in writing as a medical practice. A felony crime in independent separation in all state as a united state. In whole truth, or truth if there is legislation stating medical marijuana is a legal idea and is placed in pull of vote. The democracy is addressing an idea that marijuana was in fact always tyrannically illegal, not proven to be illegal as a process itself subject to scrutiny. The idea of admission is being directed as the justification for allowing a religious freedom to occur. There is a fabrication of limited truth here that does not reflect the murders that had grown out of control by the publics religious convictions to smoking and consuming pot.

Marijuana is more complex as it has issue in patent law and a history of refinement, human processing like marijuana into hashish and opium into heroin. A long history of truth that affects an assembly of whole truth and nothing but truth.

On a persona note Myself. I see great potential for Marijuana in particular for public service. Things that reach well beyond any religious self-indulging with public consumption. So it should be understood I am particularly distraught for the injustice created publicly by the practice of intentional constitution evasion in this matter. The United States of America as a thirteen Colony Nation was a great exporter of marijuana for hemp to be used in ship sails before the age of steam ship.

kevin_burke

@TKDB
so what you are saying is that someones right to get high is more important then someones right to self defense. (What are you really fighting for?)

kevin_burke

@TKDB
You said...... The above is what is called "pro gun owner thinking," a self defense thought process that is used to defend the gun owners guns, and using the same defense, to defend the Second Amendment as it was written back in the 18th century, and is not currently reflective of the 21st century, reflecting the existence of the 393 million guns, where the human population is roughly 325 million.
I say...... The above is what I call "Anti-second amendment thinking." a self-cowardice defense used to try and make pro-second amendment men shy away and feel ashamed of themselves. The same defense has been used millions of times by leftist. And thank god there are that many guns now I feel safer knowing that if someone invades our country they'll be fighting door to door because almost everyone has a gun. 
"We cannot invade the mainland United States their would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Isoroku Yamamoto (He was a fleet admiral in the imperial japanese navy)

TKDB

@John_C_87  

You again, are self entitled to continue to express things, from you own mindset.

I presented an article, that in a sense is a cross conversation, in regards to gun ownership, medical weed use, with an apparently choice between owning a gun, or indulging in medical weed, minus the ownership of a firearm, along with some, of the laws that affect the rest of the public as a whole?

Neither medical marijuana, or recreational marijuana, has yet to be legalized, as much across the country, as some would maybe prefer to see weed in general, legalized to that level? 

Reiterating the previous two talking points:

Here's the rough if it, apparently, some of the gun owners, who may, or might indulge in medical marijuana, are apparently wanting their way, not only with the Second Amendment, but with, the Fifth Amendment as well? 

So again, yes, the Second Amendment, should be reflective of how some are treating the 21st century, via their lawful, and or illegal gun use, and their medical marijuana use, while being a probable gun owner at the same time?  

@kevin_burke

The article speaks for itself.

"so what you are saying is that someones right to get high is more important then someones right to self defense. (What are you really fighting for?)

Why not reach out to some of the gun owners, and ask them, how they maybe feel about, (the gun owners who are wanting to apparently indulge in medical marijuana, while being gun owners at the same time?)

And see what those gun owners, say about the above question?

kevin_burke

 @TKDB
I clicked persuaded not because I want to revise the second amendment but because I can't give an answer that question. Medical Marijuana is needed and it will always be misused by some people.  

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

So again, yes, the Second Amendment, should be reflective of how some are treating the 21st century, via their lawful, and or illegal gun use, and their medical marijuana use, while being a probable gun owner at the same time? 

There's still no need to change the 2nd Amendment.  There is no lawful marijuana use, not according to the federal government, hence the problem.  The solution is for the federal government to either reclassify marijuana or to come up with better guidelines to deal with the issue.

kevin_burke

@CYDdharta ;
Um the federal government passed a law legalizing recreational marijuana. And medical marijuana is needed I have a friend whose daughter suffers almost daily from seizures and no medicine was helping and he tried medical marijuana and they completely stopped.

TKDB

@CYDdharta

"There's still no need to change the 2nd Amendment."

Yes, there is.

So the apparent mindset of the Founding Fathers, who wrote the Second Amendment, was based on their understanding of their 18th century knowledge, about guns right?

How many guns, can you guess were maybe in circulation then? 

Maybe a 250,000, or maybe around a million guns? 

To go along with the original 13 states?

The Second Amendment, as its written, is in a sense, poorly written, given the current day and age, where there are 393 million guns, in comparison to the 325 million U.S. citizens in the country right now.

Now add the probability of a lawful gun owner, or owners, who maybe use medical marijuana, or recreational marijuana, behind closed doors, when its against both of the laws to do so, then you have a Second Amendment, that was not written, to address the troubles that some of the modern public, via the plethora of gun violence brutality crimes, or the plethora of medical, or recreational weed users, are bringing both against the Second Amendment, as its currently written, and the laws in regards to medical weed use, and lawful gun ownership?

"There is no lawful marijuana use, not according to the federal government, hence the problem.  The solution is for the federal government to either reclassify marijuana or to come up with better guidelines to deal with the issue."

Yes, there is, if some of the state's have legalized marijuana use, on their individual state soil, apparently those individual states, view marijuana legalization, diffently from how you maybe view it? 

Marijuana legalization, for both medicinal use, and recreational use, has been getting various pushes from various pro marijuana organizations, advocates, and activists, roughly since 2010?

The conversation over lawful gun owners, and some of them wanting to use medical marijuana, came into the conversation light around 2016-18, I believe? 

https://www.coloradoindependent.com/2016/09/02/guns-marijuana-colorado-pot-firearms/  ;

"Can you own a gun in Colorado if you smoke pot?"

"In September 2016, a federal appeals court covering nine western states upheld a ban on firearms sales to residents who hold medical marijuana cards.

Though Colorado was not among those states, lawyers here say the move sends a signal that the federal judicial branch is not sympathetic to state laws when it comes to guns and pot.

The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit brought by a Nevada woman with a medical marijuana card— she says she’s not a user— who was denied a gun by a gun dealer. The court decision is again fueling a debate about the intersection of state and federal law on weed and weapons."

“We’ve had this problem from day one,” says Tony Fabian, an attorney who has helped draft firearms legislation in Colorado.

“There’s nothing in Colorado law that says that it is unlawful to be in possession of a legal amount of marijuana and have a firearm,” Fabian told The Colorado Independent. “The problem is the dichotomy in federal and state law. And the feds are much more restrictive when it comes to firearms ownership.”

Colorado law is silent about whether someone of the appropriate age can carry a legal firearm and a legal amount of marijuana at the same time, says John Jackson, the chief of police for Greenwood Village and a former director of the state police chief’s association.

“If they’re 21 and they’ve got a joint, and a gun on their hip, there’s no issue there,” he said. (Colorado is also an open-carry state.) 

The feds have a different take.

“Under federal law, a marijuana user cannot legally possess a firearm,” Lisa Meiman, a spokeswoman for the Denver division of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told The Independent. Not even in Colorado where marijuana is legal to have and use. 

So, local Colorado police don’t mind, but a federal agent might. The problem is also compounded because the administration of Democratic President Barack Obama has directed federal agencies not to zealously enforce some federal laws in states that have legalized marijuana.  

The difference between state and federal law has frustrated some firearms enthusiasts in Colorado since the state legalized the sale and possession of recreational marijuana with a constitutional amendment passed by voters in 2013. The disconnect between laws and agencies grows wider when it comes to concealed-carry permits because county sheriffs’ ask applicants if they are marijuana users. A “yes” answer means no permit."

TKDB

@kevin_burke


(You said...... The above is what is called "pro gun owner thinking," a self defense thought process that is used to defend the gun owners guns, and using the same defense, to defend the Second Amendment as it was written back in the 18th century, and is not currently reflective of the 21st century, reflecting the existence of the 393 million guns, where the human population is roughly 325 million.)

You need a better argument, than the below set of words, that you came up with.

"I say...... The above is what I call "Anti-second amendment thinking." a self-cowardice defense used to try and make pro-second amendment men shy away and feel ashamed of themselves. The same defense has been used millions of times by leftist. And thank god there are that many guns now I feel safer knowing that if someone invades our country they'll be fighting door to door because almost everyone has a gun."


("We cannot invade the mainland United States their would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Isoroku Yamamoto (He was a fleet admiral in the imperial japanese navy)

So, are you saying that an individual, a human being, should heed "Mr. Yamamoto's words," and leave the U.S. alone because of the idea of having to deal with a weapons count, that outnumbers it's very own citizens, should be viewed as a threat to another human being with a military force, because there are more weapons in the U.S., then there are citizens?

If the 393 million guns in the United States, outnumbering the very citizens of the country itself, maybe makes you happy, and or content by that knowledge, then by all means, relish in that thought? 

And, thank you for sharing Mr. Yamamoto's words, being that the United States, via the Southern border, has been, in, a sense getting, quietly invaded by the illegal aliens, or immigrants, since the 1980's, without fail, hasn't it? 

And I'm guessing that the number of guns, in the United States, doesn't really seem to be of any concern, to them, now does it?

It's been reported in the news, that citizens from 50 other countries, have illegally entered in the U.S. as well via the Southern border, so I'm guessing as well, that those individuals, aren't concerned either with the United States, having 393 million guns to deal with either right? 

And I'm not a leftist:
I'm am Independent individual, who's pro public, pro Second Amendment, and Bill of Rights, and pro law abiding.

ZeusAres42

While I am currently going through numerous academic journals in relation to gun violence and of which I will also post and comment on shortly, I will just briefly leave you with this which I think settles the fact that there has been an increase in gun deaths overall including homicide, suicide, legal intervention and undetermined. But before I do so I would also like to point that while it too is possible that innocent people would have shot bad people there is no data of this and I would expect this accounts for very little. The latter was actually suggested to me by one or more people; an assumption that came out of thin air with nothing to support it; probably something suggested out of desperation would be my guess.

Anyway, here is the best available data I can find so far, excluding critically peer-reviewed academic journals for the time being. https://gun-control.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=006094

CYDdharta

@TKDB There is NOTHING wrong with the way the 2nd Amendment is written.  What you're alluding to is, once again, a problem with the way the federal drug laws are written.

TKDB

@CYDdharta

"There is NOTHING wrong with the way the 2nd Amendment is written.  What you're alluding to is, once again, a problem with the way the federal drug laws are written."

Yes, there is.

So the apparent mindset of the Founding Fathers, who wrote the Second Amendment, was based on their understanding of their 18th century knowledge, about guns right?

Where is your response to the above question?

How many guns, can you guess were maybe in circulation then? 

Where is your response to the above question? 

Maybe a 250,000, or maybe around a million guns? 

Where is your response to the above question? 

To go along with the original 13 states?

Where is your response to the above question? 

The Second Amendment, as its written, is in a sense, poorly written, given the current day and age, where there are 393 million guns, in comparison to the 325 million U.S. citizens in the country right now?

@CYDdharta

Why don't you reach out to any nationwide media outlet, and encourage them to do a nationwide poll, and see if the public as a whole, agrees with your individual pro gun owner point of view, with how you presently view the Second Amendment, that was written in the 18th century, and see if the Second Amendment should be amended to reflect the 21st century that we live in, and not the outdated18th century in which the Second Amendment was authored in? 

kevin_burke

@TKDB ;
I was merely using your words against you so by saying I need to use a better argument is reflective on to you.
And the amount of guns to people means nothing since a human can only use one effectively at a time. 
Yes the south is getting invaded but not in a violet matter most the time. That is why the borders need to be closed. I feel relief at the amount of weapons because I know if a country invades us directly and violently they will be stopped no question.

TKDB

@kevin_burke

And you are solely entitled to your pro gun opinion, the rest of the public, deserves better:

Via the Second Amendment, being amended to reflect how inhumane, some of the lawful, and illegal gun owners have been, by abusing the Second Amendment, through their criminal, and offender, mass shootings crimes, drive by shootings, sexual assaults, murder/ suicides, domestic abuse, gun violence brutality, drug related crimes, and the lawful gun owners, using recreational marijuana, and vice versa.

And again, And I'm not a leftist:
I'm am Independent individual, who's pro public, pro Second Amendment, and Bill of Rights, and pro law abiding.

kevin_burke

@TKDB
You can't blame the laws on things that happen illegally because when someone breaks the law willingly there will be no measure of law that will stop them from trying. And it is just as easy to get hold of an illegal firearm as it is to get crack, cocaine and meth. So you won't be stopping gun violence you will only be making the victims of it more vulnerable. 

TKDB

@kevin_burke

And you are solely entitled to your pro gun opinion, the rest of the public, deserves better.

By mindfully crippling your argument, with your own faulty argument.

"And it is just as easy to get hold of an illegal firearm as it is to get crack, cocaine and meth. So you won't be stopping gun violence you will only be making the victims of it more vulnerable."

kevin_burke

@TKDB
My family has a long history of law enforcement and according to many of the cops I know from california it is just as easy to get an illegal firearm (except for fully automatic weapons and combative explosives) as it is to get your "heavier" illegal narcotics. 

TKDB

@kevin_burke

https://amp-theatlantic-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/554540/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/guns-second-amendment-repeal/554540/

POLITICS

"Where the Gun-Control Movement Goes Silent

"In decades of advocacy for restrictions on access to firearms, there’s never been an organized effort to rewrite the Second Amendment. Don’t expect one to start now."

In 1991, the conservative former chief justice, Warren Burger, launched a broadside against the document that for 30 years on the Supreme Court, it was his job to interpret.

“If I were writing the Bill of Rights now,” he said in an interview on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, “there wouldn’t be any such thing as the Second Amendment.” Burger went on to say that the 27-word amendment referencing “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” had been the subject of “one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

@CYDdharta

"There is NOTHING wrong with the way the 2nd Amendment is written.  What you're alluding to is, once again, a problem with the way the federal drug laws are written."

Yes, there is.

So the apparent mindset of the Founding Fathers, who wrote the Second Amendment, was based on their understanding of their 18th century knowledge, about guns right?

Pretty much every household had a gun in it.  What point are you trying to make?

TKDB

@CYDdharta

"Pretty much every household had a gun in it.  What point are you trying to make?"

You're a pro gun extremist, right CYDdharta? 

And I'm curious, why didn't you provide a response to this question? 

@CYDdharta

Why don't you reach out to any nationwide media outlet, and encourage them to do a nationwide poll:

To see if the public as a whole, agrees with your individual pro gun owner point of view, with how you presently view the Second Amendment, that was written in the 18th century, and see if the Second Amendment should be amended to reflect the 21st century that we live in, and not the outdated18th century in which the Second Amendment was authored in? 

Are some of the legal gun owners, maybe leery of reaching out to any Nationwide news media outlet, to suggest the above poll question, because the probable answer, could maybe go against the grain of some of the legal gun owning crowd? 

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

@CYDdharta

"Pretty much every household had a gun in it.  What point are you trying to make?"

You're a pro gun extremist, right CYDdharta? 

And I'm curious, why didn't you provide a response to this question? 

@CYDdharta

Why don't you reach out to any nationwide media outlet, and encourage them to do a nationwide poll:

To see if the public as a whole, agrees with your individual pro gun owner point of view, with how you presently view the Second Amendment, that was written in the 18th century, and see if the Second Amendment should be amended to reflect the 21st century that we live in, and not the outdated18th century in which the Second Amendment was authored in? 

Are some of the legal gun owners, maybe leery of reaching out to any Nationwide news media outlet, to suggest the above poll question, because the probable answer, could maybe go against the grain of some of the legal gun owning crowd? 

Because I don't know anyone that works at a polling company, dimwit.

TKDB

@CYDdharta

Where's the answer to this question?

You're a pro gun extremist, right CYDdharta? 

John_C_87

@TKDB ;

Neither medical marijuana, or recreational marijuana, has yet to be legalized, as much across the country, as some would maybe prefer to see weed in general, legalized to that level? 

That not true. Marijuana has always been legal as a united state, and is sold as rope, we can also buy the fibers for hobbies, it is legislated to be proven illegal only, or some-one may confess to a crime which is marijuana related by accusation of consumption or ingestion. This is where a constitutional crime crates a problem. People who vote to legalized an action like drinking or smoking are in fact simply admitting it is a crime but relinquish themselves and others from the petty burden of establishing it as such with a cost of court of Constitutional law. Most issues with marijuana and gun are in fact handled more as tribunal. Not trial. This as most criminal who had a gun had been in violation of the United State on Constitution long before the use of the gun took place. The added legislated law on top of the basic principles has added not additional safety at all. Ever.

Again this is not a point of view it is a truth that is mentioned as it needs to be directed into whole truth, so that a system of separation can be conducted in which nothing but truth can be assembled. To be qualified as law the legislation must be constitutional as a United State the issue with Marijuana is it has become attached to murder for control and money. It faces the same issue that alcohol had. We look to fabricate nothing but truth from truth and whole truth it is not a ,goal to create justice as what would be expected from lawyer in these matters. 

In truth as self-indulgence by me in liberty to talk freely, guns are antiquated and the right to bear arms as common defense is addressing newer options. Those to which you may not have common knowledge. They however are still regulated on United state constitutional right. Having now to back pedal it is still gun and ballistic shields which are needed in public places. The gun has been put in place and regulated the basilic shield has not, It is that simple. It was negligence that they had not been added with metal detection and power residue detection.

While not owning a gun is not taking on the burden of Military lethal force equally. It is a crime as fact. It is a crime as truth. The idea is it is simply not prosecuted or tested in civil court like guns do to burdens on the judicial separation process as a whole.

TKDB

@John_C_87

I wish you a good day.

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

@CYDdharta

Where's the answer to this question?

Above

You're a pro gun extremist, right CYDdharta?

No

John_C_87

@TKDB ;
In 1991, the conservative former chief justice, Warren Burger, launched a broadside against the document that for 30 years on the Supreme Court, it was his job to interpret.

If I can express a truth for consideration for whole truth. A supreme court judge does not really interpret the United States Constitution, as witness I would describe the possess as test. As a judge sits between the scale of Constitution before a sword of fabricated justice. An Amendment along the line of Constitution held in united state acknowledging the idea of test as it only restricts a test of religious nature to hold office. Not a test of basic principle with legal precedent. Which is why the idea of religion as basic principle of publicly shared belief is constantly discredited as truth. Yet it is a very constant fact as united state in all religion

TKDB

@John_C_87

Have a good day, and good bye.

TKDB

@CYDdharta

The Second Amendment should be amended, being that you have apparently, claimed it as your own, just as some of the pro gun extremists have apparently, claimed as their own, along with it being abused by every criminal, and offender, who has committed their multitudes of crimes, with their illegally owned guns.

It needs to be amended, so that it's a reflection of the 21st century, meaning everybody in the Public.

As its currently written, its been handicapped, by the pro gun extremists, and the crimes committed by the criminals, and offenders for generations now.

John_C_87

When changing the 2nd Amendment it should be understood the constitutional right for gun ownership does not change at all. The second Amendment simple directs the gathering of people as a united state constitutional gun owner to be permissible. Adding some detail to the 1st Amendment in principle the constitutional right to gather as a gun owner. The basic example would be like hunting and shooting clubs.

Basic Principle the gun is the popular way to bear arm in a democratic way equally. In basic principle the other democratic suggestion is through delegation of civil liability, so the burden of lethal force does not need be shared equally by choice the joining of that united state. The liberty or freedom here is a person can refuse and simple not buy a gun to avoid part of the liability. This is not a whole truth however as in mass shootings the ability of not assuming the burden of lethal force and returning fire is a negligence. The idea is to add complex and costly training to those who have already share equally the burden of lethal force to hide the criminal civil liability. Had a Gun been available would the shooting have ended sooner, thus saving many more lives?

Basic Principle a criminal is in violation of most all basic United state held in constitution. Organized, recorded, judicial impartial separation, etc. In truth it is not the United state constitution or its amendment which handicaps basic principles and legal precedent it is the act of civil tribunal.

In a basic sense if there is not adequate representation in the 2nd Amendment a new constitutional amendment needs to be recorded and addressed in addition to basic principle before a United States Constitution as a whole.

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

@CYDdharta

The Second Amendment should be amended, being that you have apparently, claimed it as your own, just as some of the pro gun extremists have apparently, claimed as their own, along with it being abused by every criminal, and offender, who has committed their multitudes of crimes, with their illegally owned guns.

Criminals citing the 2nd Amendment in their defense is widespread?  You'll have to back up that statement.

kevin_burke

@Everyone
I have come to the conclusion that this site has no meaning and will bring about no change in anyone. For those of you who debated maturely and responsibly it was an honor. I pray that everyone here will grow closer to god and live a good life thank you and goodbye.

TKDB

@CYDdharta

What about a counter argument statement, for the below talking point?

(The Second Amendment should be amended, being that you have apparently, claimed it as your own, just as some of the pro gun extremists have apparently, claimed as their own,)

@CYDdharta :

The below statement from you, where did that come from? 

"Criminals citing the 2nd Amendment in their defense is widespread?  You'll have to back up that statement." 

Because the below, is what I said:

(along with it being abused by every criminal, and offender, who has committed their multitudes of crimes, with their illegally owned guns.)

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

The below statement from you, where did that come from? 

It came from your post, which is why I cited it.  Try reading before you post, it will save a lot of time and needless typing.

BrandyKnight

ZeusAres42 said:

The fact is that there is crime surrounding both handguns and high powered guns and there does need to be something done to reduce the number of casualties that occur from gun-related crime each year. Now, while statistically more people in the US are killed every year by hand-guns this still does not justify the need to own much more high powered weapons capable of killing numerous amounts of people in seconds. High powered weapons are not needed to for self-defense where a simple hand-gun will suffice. Further, nor will either hand-guns or high powered guns be enough to do anything in the extremely improbable event of Government Tyranny. So, based on this high powered guns are not needed and can be rightly so, extinguished. So, this is one of the first steps to reducing casualties and/or deaths that occur as a result of high powered weapons; to make them inaccessible.

Next, we still have the issue of hand-gun related casualties and deaths. I have a few suggestions in regards to this and they are as follows:

1. Calibrate stricter laws so that the guns do not fall into the hands of bad or irresponsible people. You would do this by ensuring that gun owners and potential gun owners have regular background checks as well as psychological checks. These checks would take place every five years minimum.
   
2. Ensure that everyone that wants to own a gun has training in how to actually use it, and take a gun safety course.
3. Put in place a stricter selection process for all Police Officers. As we have seen in past times there are Police Officers that are trigger-happy and tend to rely more on their guns than their actual brains. These courses of action would entail psychological tests, including intelligence testing. 
   
4. Fine-tune laws/policies that would more robustly tackle the issues of drugs and gangs as a lot of gun crime also revolves around these factors.  

Now, what are your views?

    !. Stricter laws would not help as most of the gun violence is committed by people who do not care about laws in general and can get a gun whenever they want one, illegally. 
    2. This is a smart idea but not one that has anything to do with gun violence. 
    3. Police officers go through a battery of testing already. Until they are in the field, faced with direct danger, no one knows how they are going to react and quite honestly, I refuse to judge them         
        for staying on guard. We simply don't know or understand unless we have been there. There have been a few rogue officers who were nothing less than cold blooded killers, but that number
         is slight and does not accurately reflect the character of the majority of our police forces in this country. 
     4. Again, it does not matter how much harsher laws become on gang bangers or drug dealers. Criminals have no respect or fear of the law until they are arrested after they commit crimes. It will not            change. 

 Ultimately, my opinion is that we have to fight fire with fire. The only thing that could have prevented the amount of deaths associated with gun violence over the past decades is if someone who was there was armed themselves. Period. No laws can touch illegal firearms possession. No laws can prevent mass killers from using any forms of weaponry of commit their violent acts, Had they not had access to guns, they would have carried out their plans in other ways, and many have. The problems are individual and unless those are addressed, there is no stopping the individuals regardless. 

ZeusAres42

USA Gun Violence – What we know so far

 

After going through numerous critically peer-reviewed and cross-referenced academic journals (and perhaps I should have started with this) it turns out that firearm violence within the United States is far more prevalent than I originally thought. I did notice that I might have made a few factual errors in one or more previous posts however, I was generally on the mark for the most part. Anyway, without any further ado lets get at it.

 

From critically-peer reviewed studies:  

·        It turns out that the USA have a far more occurrence of gun violence in comparison to other high-income countries. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26551975/

·        The amount of deaths that have occurred because of firearm violence in the USA is incomparable to that of other high-income countries. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26551975/

·        Specifically, in contrast with that of other developed countries the suicide and homicide rate is significantly higher. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26551975/

·        Mass shooting are statistically rare although gain a lot of media coverage. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5784421/

·        Ranked in order from the first to the least the overall deaths taking place as a result of firearm violence are Suicide, Homicide, Unintentional/Undetermined, and Legal Intervention.

·        Some studies have suggested that firearm homicide had somewhat increased in some years between the 1990s and the 2000s. If I ever said anything about homicidal gun violence between these years has been increasing, then I admit that I was mistaken and stand corrected. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5784421/

·        There are conflicting studies about the occurrence of mass shootings with some suggesting there has been a recent increase while others claim that these incidences account for a very low percentage overall within the past century. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5784421/  

·        Very little evidence suggests that there might be a connection between gun violence and mental illness alone. This notion of a connection between gun violence and mental illness also causes problems for being able to deal both with the issue of gun violence and mental illness in a pragmatic way. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5784421/

·        There is an abundance of evidence that proves that most people with mental illness are not violent. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5784421/

·        However, mental illness that is comorbid is considered an essential risk aspect for violence in general amid those that abuse substances. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5784421/

·        Gun violence is a common occurrence among those that illegally use substances. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5784421/

·        There is a significant link between alcohol misuse and firearm suicides and unintentional injuries. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5784421/

·        It is abundantly clear that among developed countries there are more homicides where firearms are more easily accessible. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11130511/

·        One or more studies showed that in 2010 alone in comparison to other high-income countries the firearm homicide rate was exceptionally higher. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26551975/

·        In comparison to other high-income countries the firearm homicide between 2003 and 2010 had significantly increased while the gun homicide of other developed countries continued to decrease. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26551975/

 

From Other Sources:

·        Death by gun assault is the eighth leading cause of death within the United States with the odds being 1 in 285, which has also increased since 2015 when the odds were 1 in 315 and firearm homicide was then the eighteenth cause of death in the USA. This also means that the rate of gun related homicide significantly increased between the years from 2015 to 2017. https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/

·        Firearms are significantly a leading cause of death among children in the US and in 2016 alone more children died of gun-related incidences than those that died from cancer according to an aritcle in sciencemag: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/12/guns-kill-more-us-kids-cancer-emergency-physician-aims-prevent-those-firearm-deaths.

·        The calibration for stricter gun regulation does not solely rest on whether someone is leaning to either politically left or politically right. The strong held conservative Ben Shapiro for example stated his position was for the calibration of laws so that guns didn’t get into the hands of bad and/or irresponsible people albeit he was against the removing of any kind of firearm. The idea of calibration of laws is indeed a reasonable position. As for assault weapons I personally am not saying that I am for the banning of them; I just don’t see the necessity for them in cases of self-defence when a simple hand-gun will suffice, and nor do I see what good they will do in the improbable event of government tyranny, taking into account all of the major technological advances surrounding weaponry within the US. There is also the danger that the more easily accessible that assault weapons are the more likelihood of far more casualties and/or deaths. A hand-gun kills about 30 people in a day on average. An assault weapon can kill 30 people in about or less than 10 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHIQtxLCgrM

·        From 2014 Gun-related homicide increased up to 32 %. However, the rate at which firearm homicides are currently happening are either slowly increasing or stabilised according to varying studies with some suggesting it has stabilised and others holding that that it is still increasing but at a sow rate. https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2foutlook%2ffive-myths%2ffive-myths-about-gun-violence%2f2017%2f10%2f06%2fc4536e44-a9ed-11e7-b3aa-c0e2e1d41e38_story.html%3f&utm_term=.b24e164f78e3

·        There is no conclusive data as to why gun-related injuries or deaths were so high during a period between the 1990s and the 2000s or as to why the rate of incidence nowadays is less in comparison, and this is something still up for debate. Regardless, this isn’t really a sensible premise to support the conclusion that nothing should be done to continue to reduce gun violence in general. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

 

The following comprises of recent factual errors and/or errors in statements, weak, invalid and/or fallacious arguments as well as self-contradictions:

·        “Our firearm homicide rate is roughly half what it was 25 years ago. Therefore nothing needs to be done to reduce gun violence”

Nonetheless, as has been well documented and pointed out in prior points the homicidal rate of firearms have been somewhat increasing in most recent years although at a very slow rate within the very most recent of years according various studies albeit still not at the same level as that of a certain period between the 1990s and early 2000s. Furthermore, this still does not support the supposition that no policies should be put in place whatsoever to aid in reducing gun violence in general.

·        “The firearm homicide was huge in a certain period between the 1990s and 2000s. Therefore, this must mean ‘Something’ is working and nothing needs to be done to reduce gun violence.”

Firstly, just because there was a significant peak of incidence during some years between the 1990s and 2000s does not mean there is a current decrease in gun related homicides within the very most recent of times. Again, the position that nothing should be done about gun violence in general is because gun-related homicides was very high in a certain period between the 1990s and 2000s in comparison to what they are now is not a very strong argument. Thirdly, there is no mention of this “something” that is the result of supposed lower rates of gun violence.

·        “The deaths and/or casualties occurring as a result of gun crime are relatively low in comparison to other causes of death. Therefore, nothing needs to be done to reduce gun violence.”  

What’s relative in comparison to another thing does not equate to a rarity of occurrence. Deaths and casualties from firearms in the US is a very common occurrence with death by assault with guns currently ranking as the 8th leading cause of death, documented in the US National Safety Council.

·        “The gun related deaths and injuries are small in comparison to the overall population of the US which is more than three hundred million. Therefore, nothing needs to be done about gun violence”

If the figures were about 30 incidences a year then you might have a point. However, since the deaths and casualties rest in many thousands upon thousands every year it is very clear that these are exceptional figures that need dealing with.

.        “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.”

Firstly, I never made the absurd comment anywhere that terrorism was used to thwart crime. What I did say however, is that acts of terrorism are much rarer than that of violent gun crime and I challenged a position on policies in reference to terrorism of which I never really got a response back. I will however admit that I did make a mistake when I read what was being said here as I initially interpreted this as “victims use guns to kill and injure 3+ million times more people than all of those other people combined.” Mind you, I was kind of under the influence when I read this bit. I also sincerely hope I was mistaken in the way I interpreted it because if that is what the other party meant well then that means that more than 109 billion people are getting injured and killed every year in the US. Nevertheless, the fault here lies in the fact that the idea that guns are often used to thwart crime, up to 3+ million times per year does not rest on substantially conclusive facts and is this is pointed out ironically enough from the very same source from where it comes from. https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#16. From the very same sauce you have this: “On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997).” This: “The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.”. And this: “Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.” Nonetheless, this really isn’t a good premise to support the conclusion that nothing should be done whatsoever to expressively reduce gun violence overal that continues to occur at an exception rate, considering all forms gun violence including suicide, homicide, accidental or undetermined death, or even legal intervention where the justification of police shootings is up for debate.

·        “Gun control is a restriction on our second amendment rights. Therefore, nothing needs to be done to reduce gun violence.”

The trouble with this argument is that the idea of the calibration of laws with respect to reducing gun violence is that it is not analogous to a sole abolishment of guns in general or the right to bear arms. Again, not a very strong premise to support the given conclusion that nothing needs to be done to reduce gun violence.  

 

 

 

Conclusion

There are multiple studies surrounding the issue of gun-related violence within the United States and not one of them rejects or refutes the idea that policies should be put in place to reduce or to continue the reduction of violent crime linked with firearms. Firearm violence is still currently a hugely significant problem within the US with thousands upon thousands of people being either murdered or injured every year, and death by assault used with a firearm now ranks as a leading cause of death within the USA.

Mental illness alone is nowhere near a significant risk factor for gun violence the notion that it causes many issues for policy makers, patients, and healthcare professionals.

Lastly, I am sure that if not all of us here then definitely most of us can agree that a better calibration of laws/policies could be put in place with the aim to expressively reduce the amount current violent gun-related deaths/injuries that continue to occur at a precedent rate, and without going to extremes with one of them being not doing anything whatsoever and the other being the abolishment of firearms altogether, as I am sure that at least most of want the best for humanity overall.

 

References that support herein as well as other references that support the surrounding the issue of gun related violence in general within the Unit States:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26551975/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5784421/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11130511/

https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#16

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/04/a-challenge-to-gun-rights/

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/12/guns-kill-more-us-kids-cancer-emergency-physician-aims-prevent-those-firearm-deaths

https://gun-control.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=006094

https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-america/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2foutlook%2ffive-myths%2ffive-myths-about-gun-violence%2f2017%2f10%2f06%2fc4536e44-a9ed-11e7-b3aa-c0e2e1d41e38_story.html%3f&utm_term=.b24e164f78e3

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TKDB

@BrandyKnight

The below pro gun ideology, is the product of fantasy thinking.

"Ultimately, my opinion is that we have to fight fire with fire. The only thing that could have prevented the amount of deaths associated with gun violence over the past decades is if someone who was there was armed themselves."

You cant justify your pro gun fire with fire position, when kids, teenagers, parents, senior citizens, or the single individuals who were killed, by the career criminals, offenders, or the first time offenders, by fictionally implying that a lawful gun owner, could have made a fictional difference with a fictional gun, and would have saved those victims, who are now gone, because of their victimizers gun violence brutality crimes?

TKDB

@BrandyKnight

The below pro gun position, sadly, isn't the product of fantasy thinking?

 "Ultimately, my opinion is that we have to fight fire with fire. The only thing that could have prevented the amount of deaths associated with gun violence over the past decades is if someone who was there was armed themselves."

You can't justify your pro gun, fire with fire position, when some of the kids, teenagers, parents, senior citizens, or single individuals who were killed, by the career criminals, offenders, or the first time offenders, by fictionally implying that a lawful gun owner, could have made a fictional difference with a fictional gun, and would have saved those victims, who are now gone, because of their victimizers gun violence brutality crimes?

BrandyKnight

TKDB said:

@BrandyKnight

The below pro gun ideology, is the product of fantasy thinking.

"Ultimately, my opinion is that we have to fight fire with fire. The only thing that could have prevented the amount of deaths associated with gun violence over the past decades is if someone who was there was armed themselves."

You cant justify your pro gun fire with fire position, when kids, teenagers, parents, senior citizens, or the single individuals who were killed, by the career criminals, offenders, or the first time offenders, by fictionally implying that a lawful gun owner, could have made a fictional difference with a fictional gun, and would have saved those victims, who are now gone, because of their victimizers gun violence brutality crimes?

     There is nothing fictional about my statement. If there is another way to stop a gunman while he is shooting people, please enlighten me. Society and mental 
      illness is the problem, not legal and constitutionally protected gun ownership. Individual focused prevention is the key. 

TKDB

@BrandyKnight

Your opinion is based on a fantasy based or fictional gun who didn't exist in the face of the mass shooters, criminals, or offenders who murdered innocent people with their guns.

The real problem, is that there are 393 million guns in the United States, along with 325 million citizens, along, with the illegal gun dealer who is selling those illegal guns that are missing serial numbers on them, to any criminal, or offender, who's willing to pay for a gun, to get one.

Some humans love their gun, or guns, more than they respect the other humans around them, or more than they respect themselves.

Humanity in general, needs to understand, how to be less murderously inhumane, and to be more humane, towards other human beings.

It's not hard.

John_C_87

There are many ways to stop a shooter once a gun spree begins. The United State with all of them is that the risk of greater numbers of murders becomes much higher by the negligence of refusal to share equally the burden of lethal force. To wait, to run, and to hide comes at a great price for all. the cost is a  higher numbers of casualties.

The plus of the idea in the use of statistics to shape a civil liability for money is higher insurance compensation which comes with a price of forced transfer and not a liberty of choice with equal share of risk. Hiding a negligence by insistence of more training on others and no training on oneself. Truth.

What is at risk is who becomes the greater number in the statistics of casualties when the burden of lethal force is shared equally without prejudice. Criminal or Citizen? A statistic of shooting alone does not provide a whole truth so that nothing but truth may be determined as a point of public service.

All that aside ballistic shields are a common defense.

Ballistic shields are a direct preventative measure to stop a principle that does not limit casualties directly.

The training in the use of a ballistic shield will not jeopardize a moral refusal to share equal the burden of lethal force.

The United States Constitution and its preservation, defense, and service is the scale to which gun ownership of a citizen is weighted as a whole. This limits the united state of collateral attack by use of law and punishment. 

TKDB

@John_C_87

Have a good day

John_C_87

TKDB said:

@BrandyKnight

You can't justify your pro gun, fire with fire position, when some of the kids, teenagers, parents, senior citizens, or single individuals who were killed, by the career criminals, offenders, or the first time offenders, by fictionally implying that a lawful gun owner, could have made a fictional difference with a fictional gun, and would have saved those victims, who are now gone, because of their victimizers gun violence brutality crimes?

@TKDB ;

We can, I can. You are not out there taking guns away from the criminal shooters disarmed. You are not even giving the order for others to disarm the criminal shooters disarmed. A ballistic shield is not a gun and bullet resistant materials are already widely in use.

TKDB

@John_C_87

No, you can't, and neither can the pro gun extremists.

"We can, I can. You are not out there taking guns away from the criminal shooters disarmed. You are not even giving the order for others to disarm the criminal shooters disarmed. A ballistic shield is not a gun and bullet resistant materials are already widely in use."

Amend the Second Amendment with a mandatory death sentence, and see if some wont heed the Second Amendment then, for unlawfully killing any more of the U.S. citizens, with their unlawfully, and lawfully owned guns?

Now watch, the anti death penalty crowd, sound off on that?

Why shouldn't the voices of their victims not get a say?

Being that their civil rights were taken from them, because of being victimized by their offenders? 

ZeusAres42

Just a slight continuation from my most recent post as there are one or more things I forgot to mention. I would first like to point out that my figures of about almost half of 100, 000 deaths occurring every year were not inaccurate at all taking into account gun-related homicides, suicides, and others. We're talking in approximations here and approximations do not equate to precise figures although are very close to it. Also, it doesn't take much to work out that 100 a day times a year excluding leap years is 36, 500 and when rounded to the nearest thousand is 40,000 and when that is rounded to the nearest 10 thousand is 50,000 which is half of 100,000. Furthermore, there is not a single reputable study that says the figures approximately amount to lower than 30,000 or higher than 40,000 a year. Anyway, I am not going to get into a numerical debate and this is irrelevant to the fact that the number of deaths occurring every year in the States as a result of gun violence is still exceptionally high; way high up in the many thousands. 

Also, again, just because something was much higher during a period some decades ago does not justify the rationale that nothing should be done about gun violence that still continues at an ever precedent rate; this is just simplistic (aka black and white thinking).

Furthermore, the fact that guns may be used to traverse crime via innocent people still does not legitimize the logical basis for why nothing should be done to or continued to be done to mitigate gun-related violence.