It’s not an argument of if people kill people or if guns kill people, it’s the fact that there will always be mentally ill or corrupt people in the world that want to cause harm - guns just makes it easier for them to do it. You try stabbing 27 people to death, see how hard it is.
I
could keep going which a much longer list, but hopefully you get the
point. Evil people will find a way to be evil people, regardless of the
tools they use.
In this world there are predators and there are
prey. Disarming the prey does not protect it from the predators. Being
able to fight back, however, does.
Please give me the statistics on how many people have actually successfully stopped a school shooter by pulling out their own automatic rifle. Thank you.
Right after you show me how many school shootings have been committed using an “automatic rifle”.
Furthermore, what are the laws regarding purchasing and owning an “automatic rifle”?
How difficult is it to purchase and own an “automatic rifle”? What is the process?
Please enlighten me.
Now, let’s talk about mass shootings and how many times a concealed carrier has stopped them. You would lead people to believe that it never happens, which is also…
Pearl High School
Oct. 1, 1997
Luke Woodham fatally stabbed his mother at home before opening fire at
his high school, killing two students and injuring seven others. The
attack was stopped
when Assistant Principal Joel Myrick retrieved his .45 caliber handgun
from his truck and confronted Woodham, detaining him until authorities
could arrive.
Myrick’s action stopped Woodham from going across the street to the middle school as he had planned.
Parker Middle School
April 24, 1998
A 14-year-old student showed up to his middle school dance carrying a
.25-caliber pistol. He opened fire inside the dance, killing one teacher
and wounding another as well as two students. The rampage ended when
James Strand, owner of the banquet hall the dance was happening in,
grabbed his personal shotgun and confronted the 14-year-old killer.
Strand held the teen at gunpoint for 11 minutes before finally getting
him to drop the weapon and lie on the ground and searching him for
additional weapons.
Appalachian School of Law
Jan. 16, 2002
A 43-year-old former student armed with a .380 handgun killed
Dean Anthony Sutin and Professor Thomas Blackwell with point blank shots
and went on to kill fellow student Angela Dales as well as wounding
three others before being confronted at gunpoint by law students Tracy
Bridges, a county sheriff’s deputy, and Mikael Gross, a police officer,
after retrieving their personal handguns from their vehicles. The gunman
was then apprehended by other students.
Gross and Bridges lost valuable response time accessing their handguns because of the law school’s standing as a gun-free zone.
New Life Church
Dec. 9, 2007
2 parishioners were killed and 3 wounded when a gunman toting a
Bushmaster AR-15 opened fire at New Hope Church. Hearing the rifle fire,
Jeanne Assam grabbed her personal concealed carry firearm and
confronted the gunman from a distance of 20 yards. According to 5280 Magazine:
She fires five quick shots. Murray falls backward. Assam
moves to the middle of the corridor and rushes forward. She’s a few
dozen feet from Murray now, exposed in the middle of the hallway. “Drop
your weapon, or I will kill you!” she yells. Murray sits up to face her.
He’s still holding the rifle. Boom-boom-boom. Bullets rip past her and
pepper a wall. While Murray shoots, Assam fires three times.
Through the haze of gun smoke, Assam sees the man struggling on the
floor. He props his head against a wall. Her weapon is up, trained on
the man. She sees his hands moving near his shoulder. He’s trying to
pull the pin on a grenade. He’s going to kill everyone around here,
Assam thinks. She instinctively steps back and fires two more shots.
New York Mills AT&T Store
May 27, 2010
A 79-year-old man entered an AT&T store in New York Mills, New York
carrying a .357 magnum revolver in his hand and a list of employees he
planned to kill in his pocket. Hearing the hand cannon go off, Donald J.
Moore drew his own personal weapon and killed the gunman before he
could complete his plan. One employee was wounded in the shooting.
Sullivan Central High School
August 30, 2010
When a 62-year-old man armed with two handguns forced his way
into Sullivan Central High School in Tennessee, he was immediately
engaged by School Resource Officer Carolyn Gudger. Gudger put her body
between the gunman and a student and started what would turn out to be a
more than 10 minute gun-to-gun encounter. Gudger used the time to
slowly move the man to a less crowded part of the school. When other
officers arrived on the scene, a brief gun battle erupted ending with
the gunman mortally wounded.
Freewill Baptist Church
March 25, 2012
Aaron Guyton was inside the recreation building of his grandfather’s
church when he saw Jessie Gates, a member of the congregation, pulling a shotgun from his vehicle.
Guyton leapt into action, locking the doors to the church where
services were going on. Gates kicked in the door and pointed the shotgun
at Rev. Henry Guyton and several parishioners. Drawing his concealed
handgun, the younger Guyton held Gates at gunpoint while two members of
the church took him to the ground. Rev. Guyton then took the shotgun
from his hand.
Clackamas Town Center Mall
Dec. 11, 2012
Two people were killed and a third was seriously wounded at Clackamas
Town Center near Portland, Oregon when a rifle-toting gunman opened fire
in in the busy food court. Nick Meli, a shopper in the mall, drew a
personally owned firearm on the gunman, who immediately retreated to a
service corridor and killed himself. Meli did not fire his weapon for
fear of striking bystanders yet authorities say his actions caused the
gunman to cease his attack and end his own life.
Mystic Strip Club
January 11, 2014
After being refused entry to the strip club for belligerent behavior and
racist comments earlir in the night, Thomas Elliott Hjelmeland returned
carrying a handgun and wearing a Halloween mask. As soon as he entered
the club, Hjelmeland opened fire, striking bouncer Brian Rizzo, a
patron, and a waitress. Another bouncer, Jonathan Baer drew his
concealed handgun and shot Hjelmeland, killing him.
Following the attack Baer posted to Facebook: “I did what I felt was
right to stop the shooter…I carry every day, and will continue to, and
will so with the hope that I will NEVER have to pull it out again.”
10. Austin, Texas Construction Site
April 30, 2014
An irate former employee came to a construction site and opened fire on his co-workers.
The site’s foreman, a Concealed Handgun License holder, drew his
firearm and opened fire. Both men were wounded in the exchange of
gunfire but the foreman’s actions ended the attack and no one else was
wounded.
11. Cache Valley Hospital
May 16, 2014
Armed with two handguns, a man entered the Cache Valley Hospital emergency
room and began making demands. After demanding to see a doctor, he
racked the slide on one of his handguns and told hospital employees
“someone is going to die today”. While a security guard tried to keep
the gunman’s focus on him, two corrections officers who happened to be
at the hospital on an unrelated matter engaged from another direction.
The gunman was shot three times and no other people were harmed.
12. Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital
July 25, 2014
A patient at a psychiatric clinic killed his case worker at point blank
range and then turned his gun on his doctor, Lee Silverman, striking him
several times. Before the gunman could leave the office and continue
his rampage, Dr. Silverman drew his own concealed handgun and pumped
three rounds into the gunman’s torso, mortally wounding him. Police and
hospital staff hail Dr. Silverman as a hero and credit him with saving
dozens of lives.
We can find even more evidence of gun saving lives by looking at defensive gun use in America.
Defensive Gun Use:
Guns help protect
innocent lives FAR MORE OFTEN than they help to harm innocent lives.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses in this
country alone every single year.
Quite
simply put, guns save innocent lives. And they do so far more often
than they hurt them.Would you like to keep playing?
They asked for statistics, not antic dotes. A few people managing to properly defend themselves with guns doesn’t mean we shouldnt have regulations with giving out guns, letting people with no training able to get access to them so easily. It also doesn’t mean anything when faced with the fact that countries with stricter gun policies have significantly lower crime rates and shootings.
We’ve had enough shootings this year to have had one every day. You don’t think we need regulations? Just a little?
‘They asked for statistics, not antic dotes.’
Yes, but they did it with a proposition that can basically only be countered with antidotes for the most part.
You see, when people say that mass shootings are not stopped by concealed carriers, it creates a Catch 22. On one hand, if a concealed carrier stops the shootings before 4 or more people are killed, gun control advocate get to argue it wasn’t a mass shooting because not enough people were killed to meet the accepted FBI definition of a mass shooting. On the other hand, if a concealed carrier stops a shooter after four or more people are killed, gun control advocates get to argue that although an armed citizen stopped the threat, that armed citizen still did not prevent a mass shooting. It’s bullshit.
‘A few people managing to properly defend themselves…’
A few? Try hundreds of thousands every single year.
Hey! Check it out! It’s those statistics you asked for!
Now, let’s compare this to how often guns are used to protect innocent lives rather than protect them. Hold on tight! More statistics coming at you!
Chances of being shot or killed based on firearm deaths and population count:
Death by gun, suicide excluded: 0.0032%
Death by gun, suicide included: 0.0095%
Death in a mass shooting alone: 0.000032%
Injury by gun, no death: 0.024%
Death of injury by gun including suicide: 0.033%
Gun
deaths and injuries etc based off general stats used by anti gun
people, rather than exact numbers from each year because its faster and
easier to do. Going by exact yearly figures would result in very little
change to the average numbers used above.
Guns compared to other ways you can die:
Unintentional fall deaths:
Number of deaths: 26,009
Deaths per 100,000 population: 8.4
Motor vehicle traffic deaths:
Number of deaths: 33,687
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9
Unintentional poisoning deaths:
Number of deaths: 33,041
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7
All poisoning deaths:
Number of deaths: 42,917
Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.9
All Drug poisoning deaths:
Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.4 (2010)
All firearm deaths (suicide included):
Number of deaths: 31,672
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3
All firearms deaths (suicide excluded):
Number of deaths: 12,664
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6
Firearm deaths broken down completely:
3.6 for homicide 6.3 for suicide 0.30 for unintentional 0.10 undetermined
10.3 for deaths total in general of 3.6 for homicide only. You are more
likely to trip and die than be killed by a gun. Cars kill more than guns
but are not even protected by the constitution and isnt a right, and
are less regulated than guns!
Quite
simply put, guns save innocent lives. And they do so far more often
than they hurt them. When guns are harming more innocent lives than
they are protecting, it could be argued that it might make sense to
further limit guns.
But for now, it’s not even close. Moving on…
‘It also doesn’t mean anything when faced with the fact that countries
with stricter gun policies have significantly lower crime rates and
shootings.’
And what countries would those be? Statistics (We know how much you love those statistics!) say otherwise.
Gun Control in Other Countries:
People have a
habit of making the false assumption that stricter gun control results
in lower violent crime and/or lower gun violence. This assumption is
simply not true.
Gun Related Deaths per 100,000
United States - 10.64
Countries With Strict Gun Control:
Mexico - 11.17
Argentina - 10.5
Brazil - 19.03
Colombia - 28.14
El Salvador - 46.85
Guatemala - 36.38
Honduras - 64.8
Jamaica - 39.74
South Africa - 21.51
Swaziland - 37.16
Venezuela - 50.90
^^^ [Visualization of the scale of firearms related death rates
per 100K inhabitants by country. Note: suicides and accidental deaths
are included.] ^^^
Yep. Nothing but rainbows and butterfly kisses in all of those
countries. Nothing bad every happens in those countries since they have
strict gun control.
But, Johnny! Those countries aren’t
developed like America! You need to compare us to other developed
countries like Australia and The UK! Gun control is clearly working for
them!
The total firearms death rate in 1995 -
the year before the massacre and the laws introduced - was 2.6 per
100,000 people. The total firearms murder rate that year was
0.3/100,000. From 1980-1995, Australian firearms deaths dropped from
4.9/100,000-2.6/100,000 without the implementation of firearms laws.
This is a rate of decline that has remained fairly constant; Looking at
1996-2014, in which the rate has dropped from 2.6-0.86, it shows that
the decline has been slower in a longer period of time since the law’s
passing. Likewise, homicides declined more quickly in the 15 years prior
to the firearms laws (0.8-0.3) than in the 18 years since it (0.3-0.1).
This just indicates that firearms deaths haven’t been noticeably
affected by the legislation you’ve claimed has done so much to decrease
gun crime.
It should also be noted that around the same time,
New Zealand experienced a similar mass shooting, but did not change
their existing firearms laws, which remain fairly lax; even moreso than
some American states like California, New York, or Connecticut. Despite
this, their firearms crime rate has declined fairly steadily as well,
and they haven’t experienced a mass shooting since.
The “australia banned guns and now they’re fine”
argument is really old and really poorly put together. Gun control is
little more than a pink band-aid on the sucking chest wound that is
America’s social and economic problems. It’s a ‘quick fix’ issue used by
politicians to skirt around solving the roots of the violence problem
in the United States, which are primarily poverty, lack of
opportunities, and lack of education.
You could ban guns tomorrow nationwide and gun violence and overall violent crime would not be reduced at all.
In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[37]
noted that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent
years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on
violence
In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996
firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology.
Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no
evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.[40]
A study coauthored by Simon Chapman found declines in firearm‐related
deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total
firearm deaths (p=0.04), firearm suicides (p=0.007) and firearm
homicides (p=0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional
firearm deaths, which increased.[43]
Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of
mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a
rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size
between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were
compared between countries. That study found that in the period
1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not
differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country
has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued
availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors
conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain
types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country
since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to
certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in
Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the
absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still
allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to
experience mass shooting events.”[44]
We see this same trend in England.
And Ireland…
And on and on and on… Sorry. Gun control does not create a safer society whatsoever.
I
keep hearing people say that we won’t try gun control simply because
gun owners are ignorant and love their guns more than human life.
It’s bullshit.
The fact is, WE HAVE TRIED STRICT NATIONAL GUN CONTROL.
Does the year 1994 or the name Clinton ring a bell to anyone? Anyone?
From
1994 - 2004, there were strict national gun control laws in place in
America. They included most of the laws that are being proposed now.
An “assault weapons” ban. Magazine capacity limits. All of that.
All
of these inconvenient facts aside, we haven’t even touched on the cost
of implementing Australian style gun control in America.
I keep hearing people say that the US should adopt Australia’s gun
control policy and I don’t think they have really thought about the big
picture of that plan.
Australia had far less guns per person and
people in their country did not live in a society that was brought up
respecting The 2nd Amendment. The culture of Australia is very
different than that of the culture of America when it comes to gun
ownership and self defense.
There are over 360,000,000 legally owned firearms in America. If we go by Australia’s numbers ($792.39 per gun), these guns would cost our government $285,261,489,698.89 to buy back. Almost 300 BILLION dollars, assuming that every gun owner voluntarily turns in their guns… Which is a very slim to nothing chance.
Who’s going to pay for that? Anti-gunners? I think not.
So, in closing, you want America to put in place gun legislation that will cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars AND has
already been proven time and time again to be completely ineffective at
protecting innocent lives or creating a safer society?
Seems pretty silly.
‘We’ve had enough shootings this year to have had one every day. You don’t think we need regulations? Just a little?‘
No. Sorry. There have not been 300+ mass shootings this year.
Washington
Post came to this conclusion by using the bullshit definition of “three
or more people shot in one incident”. By using this bogus definition,
they were able to make things sound much worse than they really are.
The
accepted FBI definition of a “mass killing” is an incident in which
three or more people were killed. Until recently, the accepted
definition was actually four people, not three. The accepted definition
of a “mass shooting” is a “mass killing” in which the murder weapon
used was a firearm.
When we stick to the accepted definition of a “mass shooting”, the number of mass shootings in 2015 falls well short of 300.
I have more thoroughly debunked this bullshit claim in another post, which can be found [HERE].
And yet you still don’t find it disturbing that one of the most prosperous, first-world countries is ranking among second and third-world countries in gun deaths?
And why arent suicides and accidents included? Those are still deaths caused by neglectful distribution and handling of firearms. It doesn’t matter what your intentions are; if you don’t know how to use a gun, get some training before you get one. I.e., make sure the people who are selling you the gun WON’T sell you the gun until you do.
Wow. Wouldn'tcha fuckin know it, murder isn’t the only cause of death. How shocking. Guess what? The number of murders are still too fucking high. It doesn’t matter how much smaller it looks when compared to dying naturally, in accidents, from diseases, AND from all other causes combined, it’s still embarrassingly high compared to other modern countries. Hell, by your logic, lets stop research on obscure genetic diseases. Deaths from those aren’t nearly as common as deaths from other things. Lets stop worrying about it.
I don’t think it will be a quick fix! What exactly do you think regulations mean? Do you really think shootings wouldn’t go down if they did simple, basic background checks on people purchasing them? I’m not saying it should be impossible to get a gun, I’m saying it should be closer to getting a car than getting free candy. Can you drive? Do you know how this works? How likely are you to run people over?
I don’t expect people to ban guns and suddenly solve all our issues. I expect maybe–and this is a crazy idea–we should be a little more carful who we give dangerous weapons to?
‘And yet you still don’t find it disturbing that one of the most
prosperous, first-world countries is ranking among second and
third-world countries in gun deaths?‘
No. If anything, it simply further shows that gun control is a failure. These other countries have very strict gun control compared to The United States’ gun laws and even with all of those restrictions in place, they still can’t reduce their gun violence to below ours. If gun control truly worked as well as you claim, shouldn’t those numbers be much lower than ours, regardless of whether they are first world or not?
Furthermore, when we look at overall homicide rates of these countries we find that they aren’t so close to us after all.
By only focusing on gun murders, you are choosing to be willfully ignorant to the fact that criminals often simply find a different tool to kill with. As we see yet again, gun control does not create a safer society.
Is this sinking in at all yet?
‘And why arent suicides and accidents included?‘
Well, because you didn’t bring them up. But we can discuss that as well.
Gun
bans result in lower gun suicide rates, but a compensatory increase in
suicide from other accessible and lethal means of suicide (hanging,
leaping, auto exhaust, etc.). People who are intent in
killing themselves find the means to do so. Are other means of suicide
so much more politically correct that we should focus on measures that
decrease gun suicide, but do nothing to reduce total suicide deaths?
Seems pretty stupid.
Did you also not see the report that I posted that found Australia’s gun laws did not reduce suicide? It was right up there plain as day, but we can explore that more deeply as well.
IMPACT ON SUICIDE RATES:
Suicide is a phenomenon for which at least a very large portion of
substitution of method occurs. If a person wants to die and his/her
“preferred” means is not available, he/she can quite easily determine
another quite satisfactory means. A good thing about means other than
guns, when it comes to trying to kill oneself, is that most other means
are quieter—so it’s likely your intent won’t be discovered if you are
unsuccessful, leaving you free to try again until you are successful.
The “success” rate for the average attempt with a gun may be higher than
for other means, but a suicidal person can use some of the other means
repeatedly until successful.
The gun suicide rate averaged about 3.45/100k from ‘79 to ‘87, then
dropped unevenly at about .158/100k (average) per year from ‘87 to ‘96.
This ('97 & '98) is where gun controllers would think the suicide
rate should drop immediately or start dropping at a higher rate (i.e.,
higher than .158/100k). Instead, the average drop per year was
virtually identical (.156/100k) from '96 to '04.
The truth is that the semi-auto and pump firearms that were the target of
the ban/buyback have no more value for suicide than any of the allowed
firearms. If one shoots oneself in the head with a rapid fire gun, one
does not then take another shot. It takes only one shot to commit
suicide. So one should not expect the ban (that hardly reduced the
stock of long arms and didn’t reduce the stock of handguns at all) to
have had any impact on suicide.
It is also inconceivable that any other part of the new gun restrictions
would have a perceptible impact on the gun suicide rate. Attempts to
identify people who are likely to try suicide (except for those who have
already done so) have been woefully inadequate. And those
contemplating suicide are likely to hide weapons rather than surrender
them all to their government.
One may wonder (from looking at the graph) if a trend in gun suicide had
started from '93 to '96, in which case it could be argued that gun
suicide dropped abruptly in '97 and '98, interrupting the trend. It is
very possible. The '93-'96 points lie very close to a straight line.
Another year or two of data points along the line would have made it
quite probably a trend. A trend of only three years cannot be well
proven because the possibility of such patterns occurring from chance
alone is too great. If '93 to '96 was a trend, the post-'96 trend still
appears to be heading towards getting back on the '93 to '96 trend line
in a few years. Note too that the values from '01 to '04 look much
like a nonlinear trend, largely because of the small departures from the
curve.
Unfortunately, we can’t be very certain of conclusions drawn from such
short-term trends even if the trends are very smooth. On the other
hand, long term trends are not really good bases for detecting a change
at a particular point in time if the fact is ignored that there really
are many true short-term trends. A long-term trend needs to be stable
to be useful. Suicide and crime rate trends result from many things,
some consistent over the long term and some only over short terms.
The nongun suicide rate averaged about 7.859/100k from '79 to
'85, then jumped up where it averaged about 10.086/100k from '87 to
'94. It increased at a rapid average rate of about .873/100k per year
from '93 and '94 to '97, then dropped at a high, consistent rate
(.585/100k per year, average) from '98 to '04. Note that the '96 rate
was significantly below a trend line through the '93, '94, '95 and '97
points. Remember this when we get into the discussion of assault and
robbery rates.
It is noteworthy that the rates for total and non-gun suicides dropped
fast and consistently from '98 to '04. There is no way these impacts
could relate to firearms. So something else has been actually working
and reducing suicide rates. Maybe it was good economy. Maybe
Australian governments have actually been doing something worthwhile.
Whatever the cause, it had no impact on gun suicide rates, which simply continued to drop at essentially the same rate as between '91 and '97.
‘Those are still deaths caused by neglectful distribution and handling of firearms.‘
How will legally purchasing a gun and knowing how to use it prevent you from killing yourself with it if you are committed to doing so? Please explain this one to me.
‘Wow. Wouldn'tcha fuckin know it, murder isn’t the only cause of death. How shocking. Guess what? The number of murders are still too fucking high.‘
Are you sure about that? Because it’s actually at a 30 year low right now.
The number of guns in The United States has increased by 62% from
1993 to 2010. Currently figures show that this increase has continued
and that number has risen to about 370 Million.
Gun control
advocates would have you believe that with more guns comes more violence
and crime. This, in reality, is simply not true. If more guns lead to
more violence and crime, we would see violence and crime rates rising
with gun ownership. That is not at all what is happening.
From
1993 to 2010, gun murders were cut in half. In fact, they have
continued to drop since and we are currently at a 30 year low. Overall
murder, violent crime, and gun violence rates have also followed the
same trend despite gun ownership increasing.
‘I don’t think it will be a quick fix! What exactly do you think
regulations mean? Do you really think shootings wouldn’t go down if they
did simple, basic background checks on people purchasing them?’
A federal NICS background check is already required for every legal FFL gun purchase in every state of the country and this program has been in place for decades now.
I’m starting to think that maybe you don’t actually know what you are talking about.
‘I’m not saying it should be impossible to get a gun, I’m saying it
should be closer to getting a car than getting free candy.’
Yep. Confirmed. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Please. Enlighten us. What the legal process for purchasing a gun. I’d like to hear what you think it is.
‘Can you drive? Do you know how this works?‘
Yes, I do. Every day actually. I also own guns and know the process for legally purchasing them. However, I have no idea how to fly a helicopter. Which is why I don’t pretend to and then lecture helicopter pilots about it.
Which is maybe the same reason you shouldn’t lecture gun owners who actually do their research about the laws that effect their lives.
Just a thought.
‘How likely are you to run people over?‘
About as likely as I am to randomly pulling my gun out and shooting innocent people. 0.000%
‘I don’t expect people to ban guns and suddenly solve all our issues.‘
Well, that’s good. Because it won’t. Study after study after study from all around the globe has taught us time and time again that these measures don’t solve the issues you speak of at all. I know it feels good to dream about, but I’m sorry. Gun control measures simply do not work at accomplishing any of their goals.
If you want to keep your delusional dreams, I unfortunately cannot stop you. As for us in the gun rights community, however, we’ll stick to facts and reality.
In 2004, Helen Linehan terminated a pregnancy she had conceived with her husband, IT Crowd/Father Ted creator Graham Linehan, after discovering that the fetus had acrania and could not survive for more than an hour after the birth. As sad as the occasion was, the pair were more traumatised when the moved to Ireland shortly after and discovered that if Helen had had her abortion there, she’d have faced 16 years in prison.
Ireland has one of Europe’s most backwards abortion laws. Under Irish law, women must carry fetuses to term, even fetuses resulting from rape and incest, even nonviable fetuses, even when the mother’s life is endangered. Women who leave the country to have an abortion abroad risk arrest, forced pregnancy, and long prison sentences.
There is a large and growing movement to protect a woman’s right to choose in Ireland. The Linehans’ collaboration with Amnesty International resulted in a powerful short film that brings the issue home in a way that’s impossible to ignore.
She didn’t terminate a pregnancy, she killed a child. A terribly sick child, but this gives no credence to an argument that mothers should murder their children with impunity. How could a mother do this and then push to welcome others to the carnage? To have some company in her depravity?
Amnesty has no mission for justice, just political agenda and power, which it uses to ruin people and culture.
Self-defence with a Walking-stick: The
Different
Methods of Defending Oneself with a Walking-Stick or Umbrella when
Attacked
under Unequal Conditions - From Pearson’s Magazine, January 1901. (via Imgur)
Do construction workers, police officers, and royalty etc. feel the same objectification when children dress up like them? I’m wondering if this only applies to cultures based on race or national origin.
56 Million Exterminated Under the Guise of Gun Control
GUN CONTROL HISTORY After reading the following historical facts, read the part about Switzerland twice.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————— In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————— Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————— China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
—————————— Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————— Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
—————————— Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————– Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
*****************************************
THE NEXT TIME SOMEONE TALKS IN FAVOR OF GUN CONTROL ASK THEM: “WHO DO YOU WANT TO ROUND UP AND EXTERMINATE?”
“ with guns we are citizens, without them we are subjects”
Bernie Sanders on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert 9.18.15
Bernie Sanders, Ladies and Gentlemen.
I am in immigrant in Denmark the only right I have is to use the medical system; I have not been allowed to work, leave the country without an exit visa, study, or really do anything for the three years I have been awaiting family reunification. I don’t have a single friend here who isn’t also an immigrant.
People eat this socialist crap up but don’t realise that societies that provide these kind of benefits for their citizens do it by being xenophobic. It’s not a coincidence that “nationalist” and “socialist” often go hand in hand.
Danes literally spit on Syrian refugees. It’s a country of 5,000,000 people, and over 90% white. All the benefits Bernie is talking about exist because of a “Denmark for Danes” mentality. They’ll provide for their own but god help you if you want a slice of the pie.
I’m obviously not saying things are great in the States, but it’s disingenuous to use the Scandinavian States as a model for large, diverse North American countries. I preferred living in Canada.
I may come live in Canada if Trump wins..
It makes me so sad that people don’t realize this… how socialized countries work well because they already have a very community-oriented and therefore xenophobic culture that is then fostered by the fact that accepting poor people into the system just burdens it more and more. The Scandinavian model relies heavily on the assumption that there is already not a huge income gap so that the tax burden is already easily among everyone and that there’s a built-in desire to care for one’s own and fuck the rest.
The US doesn’t have that. The US is heavily individualistic and almost entirely composed of immigrants… A socialized system wouldn’t work within the framework of the US. Without that communal social framework already in place. Without the xenophobia already in place.
But guess what! Luckily, the US is getting more and more xenophobic every day! Maybe soon we’ll build a big enough wall to usher in the socialist revolution!!
Thanks, Democrats
>atleast 50% tax, even on benefits >“high quality” healthcare system, with months long waiting time for lifesaving things >shitty free education, taxes make private schools a thing for rich people only >a socialist politician in favor of public schools were sending her kids to a private school >about 10% of the population have been on anti-depression drugs or are currently, paid with their own money, no matter their income/benefits DENMARK YES SOCIALISM MUCH GOOD!!! Take it from a Dane, socialism sucks, and harm individuality and motivation
So, by this logic: “Against life, kill yourself” ??
I agree with neither, and don’t think people who support human rights for the unborn are protesting the killing of children they conceived (thus their reproduction capabilities are irrelevant).
This just points to the undeveloped, dogmatic, sheltered ideology of the pro abortion priests and their proselytes.
In the Chi. In my twenties. In the mood for ideas and images so nice, it's cool. I present an amorphous collection of desirable matter.