arcane_chaos said:
killerzX said:
arcane_chaos said:
killerzX said:
nobody but the OP suggested that the presidents executive orders alone would take peoples guns... and he linked us to infowar's Alex Jones, hardly part of the "right wing media", but you can go ahead with your strawman.
though those executive order will do nothing, they also dont really "stomp on the 2nd Amendment" either. the one about releasing health records borders on it though.
|
and this is what Obama is trying to get through people like you(and I mean people like you with no offense)
he has clearly stated that "There is no law or set of laws that will curve all violence"; are we to sit here and when events like Sandy Hook happen and say to the parents; "Hey sorry for your lost but hey, what can you do?" Obama went on to say "If these laws can save even one life, why not try?" this debate is not an attack on guns but a way to increase saftey for the public.
|
the only gun laws im in favor of, and ones that will do something, arent these knee-jerk reactions of "we have to do something".
im in favor of better background checks, meaning getting more up to date infor on the person, updating records, etc. better mental health screening for the backround check. making sure people dont slip through that shouldnt own a gun, making sure felons dont get guns.
and the law that will save the most lives, ban "gun free zones"
|
that's basically what obama's 23 executive actions are based on.
as for the ban "gun free zones" that is a very slippery slope, many people coming from all ends of the security field say that we shouldn't let people walk around we guns thinking that they can take the law into their own hands,(it could lead to cases like trayvon martin) it can very well lead to the wrong people getting shot at or the person getting shot at a police when arriving at the scene.
police and other authoritative figures who have been trained probably more than your regular gun owner have sometimes have had people caught in the crosshairs. I believe their was an armed civilain at the Tuscon, AZ shooting but he couldn't get a shot because of the mass amount of people running around, now picture that same scenario with a handful of gun owners.
|
i never said i was against all of the 23 executive orders. some yes, all no.
anyway, unlessthe the "gun free zone" provides armed security, then i think the gun free zone should be banned. they should at least give the faculty the choice of whether or not they want to be able to protect themselves.
the trayvon martin thing, isnt anything. the media, lied, spun, twisted, and manipulated what happened. Racist race-baiters like AL sharpton, and jesse Jackson did what they always do: lie and race bait. the media, lied, edited tapes, etc. having observed the actual facts of the case, i am all but certain Zimmerman will be found innocent.
your last paragragh kind of goes against your argument, lawful gun owners, especially the ones that conceal/open carry, arent gung ho on having some shootouts. they have discipline. they dont just shoot wildly into crowds of people, as shown in the example you provided, and also a much more recent example would be the gun owner who stopped the mall shooting, he pulled out his gun, but didnt fire becuase he saw someone behind the shooter, and didnt want to hit them, though the shooter saw the gun pointed at him, and new his rampage was over, and killed himself.
Conceal carriers statistically have much better accuracy/ hit percentage than the police do. the Police have an awful hit percentage. which i think is largely do to the civilian gun owner, knowing there will be significantly more consequences if there miss and hit someone else, than if a police officer did the same. the police have a lot more legal protection in such cases. Gun owners arent stupid, they are very safe.