Roopakm's Waterfall
Can you actually read the article please? If you continued reading the article, you would've seen that it states banning guns is not the way to limit gun violence, however due to your incapability to read an article, you singled out a paragraph and could not see the message coming across.
However as we stated before, banning guns will not decrease the number of deaths from gun violence. As my colleague stated, "Now that modern handguns are no longer legal to have in the UK, let us take a look at some murder rates. The rate for intentional homicide in the UK in 1996—the year of the Dunblane Massacre—was 1.12 per 100,000. It was 1.24 in 1997, when the Firearms Act went into effect, and 1.43 in 1998. The rate rose to a peak of 2.1 in 2002 and has fallen since to 1.23 as of 2010. These numbers have, however, been called into question due to possible under-reporting of violent crimes in the UK." The death rates actually increased once guns were banned.
http://listverse.com/2013/12/12/
Are you saying that you've given up? As you clearly stated, with a thorough background check, guns should be allowed. Also, did you just say we should provide children with guns? I don't think I'd like to be convinced by a man who believes that guns should be handed to children. I'm sorry, but you just went against your own argument, and got destroyed. RIP Saksham.
http://www.latimes.com/
"First: There is no doubt that the existence of some 260 million guns (of which perhaps 60 million are handguns) increases the death rate in this country. We do not have drive-by poisonings or drive-by knifings, but we do have drive-by shootings. Easy access to guns makes deadly violence more common in drug deals, gang fights and street corner brawls.
However, there is no way to extinguish this supply of guns. It would be constitutionally suspect and politically impossible to confiscate hundreds of millions of weapons. You can declare a place gun-free, as Virginia Tech had done, and guns will still be brought there."
"AS FOR THE European disdain for our criminal culture, many of those countries should not spend too much time congratulating themselves. In 2000, the rate at which people were robbed or assaulted was higher in England, Scotland, Finland, Poland, Denmark and Sweden than it was in the United States. The assault rate in England was twice that in the United States. In the decade since England banned all private possession of handguns, the BBC reported that the number of gun crimes has gone up sharply."
As stated above in the article, gun violence will never be diminished, and banning guns is not the way to try decrease it. Also, gun violence increased when guns were banned as the citizens could not defend themselves and criminals could easily illegally access them. This would obviously lead to any shootings resulting in higher deaths?
Therefore, as you said, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia stated that they cannot go against a constitutional right, completely destroying your argument? Sick... The Associate Justice speaks the truth however, that a right granted to us by our Founding Fathers was only there to defend the rights of a new nation, and against a tyranny, this right is clearly in support of that vision.
These firearm related incidents is because criminals misuse the right to bear arms, and not as many citizens take advantage of the right for their self defence... Taking away the right would only promote the criminals to get guns illegally, yet take away the citizens chance of fighting back? It is a lose-lose situation.
As stated in your article however, Levi was sentenced to 12 months for reckless homicide. It is the child's fault for taking the gun and firing it at his friend. Also stated in your article is that the grandfather did have the gun for protection, proving that citizens use this right in the case of an emergency. Finally, your article says that a safe storage bill has now been passed, promoting gun owners to not hide their gun "under a couch".
If guns were banned, criminals would still find a way to access firearms illegally. The murders and assaults would still occur. In possession of a gun, a citizen has a chance of protecting themselves? It in now way promotes a citizen taking a law into their hands, it promotes their chances to SURVIVE.
Accidents such as these only occur because of bad and irresponsible parenting. If the children had access to a gun inside of a home, that leads us to question the owner of the gun, not the right itself? Why would a sane man give an 11 year old child a loaded gun inside of a closed, compact environment such as a car? This was an accident, and one caused by foolishness rather than the right.
If you are saying that the amendment is no longer required, then you sir, are not changing with time. The requirements were different then and now. Perhaps the amendment was a blessing in disguise. As you say, the Americans have a strong police force and military, however what if they can't arrive in time? Hope for the best and hope that the gunmen waits for them to come? The civilians should have a valid fighting chance... in the form of a gun.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/19/
According to the this CNN article above, self defence is crucial and is rare because people haven't been educated that the right to bear arms refers to everyone eligible for their own safety. As it states, "Suppose the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary who was killed lunging at the gunman was instead holding a firearm and was well trained to use it. Would the result have been different? Or suppose you had been in that school when the killer entered, would you have preferred to be armed?" This can refer to any mass shooting, should the police not be able to arrive in time, if people could shoot the gunman, the shootings and victims could be strongly limited.
Today we will be talking about the second amendment in the Constitution of the United States of America, the right to bear arms. It has been long debated and will continue to be, however he hope that we can change your perspective on the matter. We believe it is a fundamental individual right and one granted to us by George Washington, who said “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself, they are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence”. As Jesus once said “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” Trust Jesus. What he says here is the importance of possessing a weapon, even if it is at the expense of your ‘cloak’. This represents our first point, self defence. The safety of American citizens is crucial. At times, they have to protect themselves, if they have a weapon which they’re authorised to have, they have a higher chance of staying safe. Furthermore, it was a right given to us by our Founding Fathers and one we should respect. Abuse of this right can be controlled through further examination of the buyer. Also, a lot of people feel pleasure when hunting, so they enjoy it with their own gun, or at a shooting range. Thank you.
Then what are they doing go into war? If they don't have the resources to protect their own people, the US would possibly help the country out, involve charities, however if the country knows it's limited resources yet still decides to go to war, do they deserve help?
Well in this so called "Global Society" people are going against their own all the time for personal gain, which is leading to war. Helping our own is always going to be important than others, as the results will normally directly affect us.
They can form allies through other means... and no we aren't all the same, we are separated by cultures and beliefs. Were we all the same, why would the war even exist? According to your theory of "living on the same, floating, giant rock.", we should simply help one another.
America is in debt, we all know that, and entering a war would be expensive, most likely sending us into more debt. With our money, shouldn't we be doing something more useful for our own people? The unemployment rates are higher than ever, let's help the US citizens before helping other countries.
