âIf thereâs even one life that can be saved, then weâve got an obligation to try,â -Barack Obama Oh allright Barry, I got one for ya. How about pit bulls. Pit bulls maim and kill people. Really, who needs them? So when the pit bull kills, it's the owners fault.
The communist bastard likes the taste of dog meat from what he's openly said before, so I wouldn't put it past him to try and round them up too for gubment suppers.
What about your drone strikes that take out unintended victims like women and children? I guess those lives aren't worth as much.
I agree this is a problem, but if he didn't do the strikes you would be criticizing him for being soft on terror. So your brain is not worth much.
Well guns save some property but the number of people they save from death is massively dwarfed by the number killed for no good reason. The ratio is something is something like 1/100.
I've seen data that disputes that number many times over. Like I said, you have to dig to get to the truth, and then determine if you believe what you read. I don't dispute figures of crime and accidents. The astonishing number of crimes committed with guns make me more pro-gun every time I read about gun crimes. I've said in previous posts that I experienced gun violence at a young age on several occasions (including the death of a friend), but it only made me more pro-gun. Only I, not the gov, am capable of determining my self-defense needs, not to mention my basic belief in the original intent of the second. I am in the camp that the violence is a symptom of society, not too many guns. I do think there are too many guns in the wrong hands, though. That said, I donât believe I should be punished for that, and vehemently disagree with those who think otherwise.
No,l that ratio is about right. Guns kill about 100 people for no good reason compared to the 1 they save from being killed. But the 2nd is not going away and no-one wants it to. Violence is a problem in society but even worse is the rise in mental problems. There is evidence that environmental exposure to chemicals may be causing a rise in such things as autism, bi-polar and anxiety disorders. Violence among the youth has actually gone down at the same time video games and the like has gone up. The prudent thing to do is remove the ability of these nutjobs to rapidly kill large numbers of people. There are many ways this can be done without removing the 2nd amend and still allow folks to defend their homes and selves from zombie Mexicans or whatever. I for one am NOT in favor of making all guns illegal. I don't think many people are. Perhaps 2% of the pop.
Regardless of the cause of mental illness, these people should not be allowed to get guns. I'm all for measures to prevent that, even if their privacy regarding their mental health is sacrificed. That's the price they should pay for the luxury of not being in an institution. They should also be forced to prove they are taking their required meds on a regular basis, much like many in jobs are piss tested to see if they are taking dope or drinking. Anyway, glad you are pro second. Just curious: What limits on types of weapons would you like to see for folks living on or near the mexican border? What do you think their self defense needs are?