[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

How about we stay on the topic of this thread instead of derailing it. Consider starting another thread to continue your debate on the Second Amendment.

The second amendment is the justification for this permissive attitude towards guns in the U.S., so directly relates to this issue. Did you hear yesterday they appointed a new director to ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) who cited the highest rate of gun violence in our history and why Biden needed to make this appointment.

[OhioBuckeye]

Bingo, that’s exactly what I thought but what about these poor little kids. The thing is why did they respond to the call. I feel worse for these little kids. But they have to hurt for the parents than the chicken S _ _ _ police but this is exactly what the police are getting pick on for, some politicians are wanting to make guns outlawed instead where the issue lies. It really isn’t the gun, it’s the mentally insane human that needs control not the gun. Remember guns are the tools of the trade for criminals not guns. Poor little innocent children!

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by OhioBuckeye

It really isn’t the gun, it’s the mentally insane human that needs control not the gun. Remember guns are the tools of the trade for criminals not guns. Poor little innocent children!

Okay, so if I accept that, then why is it ONLY the US has mentally ill people?

[Jotom]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

My wife just pointed out that Beau of the 5th Column, on Youtube, did a piece this, and pointed out that the Supreme Court has as far back as 1981 ruled that the police have no obligation or legal responsibility to PROTECT people. The only legal obligation is to arrest them. If this is true, then the chances are that nothing can be done (like suing the officers). They according to this are not required to do anything to protect people. So much for the Protect and Defend on police cars.

Honestly, for some reason, I am no longer comfortable with the SCOTUS as the authority that is actually attempting to protect anyone’s right. They seem to have lost their concern for protecting individual rights. Regardless of the SCOTUS’s thought of any one else’s responsibility, they have just shrugged off their own responsibilities. Do police officers still take an oath to “protect and serve”….. Not one of those cowardice little boys needed permission from the SCOTUS (or their bleeping chief) to do their job and protect those children. I do not know how they can live with themselves after such a disgraceful display of self protection. Do any one of those toy cops have children of their own? Wow, imagine what that father might have done to save his baby? Image how that might have changed the outcome….. Every man in that corridor should be held responsible for their unbelievable cowardice. 🤬 The horror and grief of it all is so incomprehensible and inconceivable, It just blows my mind 🤯

[Byte1]

If you don't like guns, don't own one. IF you don't like me owning a gun, then find some counseling that will assist you to adapt to reality. The law says I can own as many firearms as I wish. When the stats suggest that more folks are murdered by guns than are saved by guns, then we can have a legitimate discussion not based on the ignorance of non-gun owners.
I don't know that truth about how the school murders took place and the police response, but I will bet you that there were dozens if not all of the police on site that wanted to rush to the rescue. Based on experience, my thought is that they were ordered to stand down and stand by until the "bosses" made a decision. I would like to believe that everyone one of those police would be or are potential heroes but were ordered to hold.
A possible scenario; one or some of the Cops disobeys orders to stand down and rushes into the classroom. He snaps off a shot and kills a child. Think of the repercussions. Second: he rushes in and gets shot and killed. Ok, so that's his job except he was ordered not to rush in. In the first scene, he kills a child and gets fired and charged with manslaughter, subsequently going to jail. The county gets sued, not that it would be the first time a county is sued. But, what protection does a Cop have if he disobeys orders which then results in his making a deadly mistake?
I have seen very few cowardly law enforcement officers, but many heroes. I personally believe they were held in abeyance by orders from their superiors. That's just my opinion.
As a civilian, we do not have the restrictions that officials are held to. Sometimes that works to our advantage, but it can sometimes result in careless actions and harm.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

They just issued a 77-page report on the Uvalde school shooting citing "systemic failures". I think it could have been a one-page report saying that the armed police officers on the scene didn't enter the classroom and shoot the suspect because they were afraid of getting shot themselves.

One line report.

Dammed it they do and damned if they don’t. Sad, but that’s way it is now days.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by Blackbird45

What would be a perfect solution instead of spending all that money fortifying schools and hiring armed ex-military. Teach our children in prisons, we have enough of them, there hard to get into and there are armed guards there 24/7.

I know you are being facetious, BUT the answer is that the prisons are already full. Hardening public schools is not expensive at all. Some state lotteries are dedicated to providing additional funding for public school property.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by YeOldeCurmudgeon

What you say is refuted by the statistics showing the huge difference in the lack of deaths in countries with strict gun control laws and countries like the U.S. where there is a permissive attitude about gun ownership.

And yet, our cities with gun bans have the highest rates of gun related deaths in the country. Sorry, but there are too many variables when comparing our country to other countries. Too many differences. America loves it's freedom regardless of hazards.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Byte1

And yet, our cities with gun bans have the highest rates of gun related deaths in the country. Sorry, but there are too many variables when comparing our country to other countries. Too many differences. America loves it's freedom regardless of hazards.

And yet, our states with gun controls (blue) are not well represented in the gun deaths per capita. Red states take 8 (9) of the top ten places.

Statistics can prove anything. just different ways to look at the same stuff.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

And yet, our states with gun controls (blue) are not well represented in the gun deaths per capita. Red states take 8 (9) of the top ten places.

Statistics can prove anything. just different ways to look at the same stuff.

Thank you for proving my point, as it would pertain to comparing us to other countries also.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Thank you for proving my point, as it would pertain to comparing us to other countries also.

Yes, in some ways it does. I don't know why cities have higher death rates. Possibly the higher population density which could be related to being more likely a place gangs go to sell drugs. If so, then making drugs legal (to take the profit out of them) would be a good first step.

But, There are other countries that have higher population density than our cities - Japan comes to mind.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by YeOldeCurmudgeon

This is an ultra political topic but for some reason TOV has allowed it to continue.

Because of this I am going to post some facts that should make you all realize that the right to bear arms was created during a much different time than the present.

When the second amendment was passed, the U.S. had no standing army and needed private citizens to join a militia to defend the country. Not only this, but pioneers had to deal with the hazards of hostile Natives, wild animals, and unknown threats in the wilderness.

Today we not only have a huge standing army but a well-funded and organized police force.

The facts are that there are 100 million more guns in the U.S. than people and that's a dated statistic and I suspect the number today is even greater. Just based on those stats, we have by far more guns in our nation than any other in the world. We also have, as of 5 years ago, second highest number of firearms-related deaths of any nation, only Brazil topping us. The only other nations with a greater percentage of firearms-related deaths are all in Central or South America, and it would not surprise me if we have climbed in the rankings. No other nation has so many mass murder shootings.

Also, if you review the numbers of comparable nations in Europe or Asia with strict gun control like England or Japan, the number of firearms-related deaths are shockingly low. Australia, for example, had a rash of mass shootings in the 1990s and implemented strict gun control and the mass shootings virtually stopped.

For instance in the UK, the majority of police don't even carry a firearm; they carry those bobby sticks. And in the UK, shooting deaths by police average between 50-60 / year. In the U.S., the number is more than a 1,000. With all those guns out there, the police are going to reach for their guns often and quickly, and often shooting rashly for fear of their lives. So, it is more likely that in most circumstances, having a gun puts your life in greater danger, especially if you interact with police. How many times have you heard of people telling police they had a gun and reach to get their ID or registration and get shot?

The facts are blatantly obvious and to say that more guns are needed is patently insane. The only people who sell guns to people for protection are only fooling themselves and their customers.

Sure, there are some people who do need guns for their profession or some legitimate purpose, but those are people who are trained and licensed to use them.

Did you hear about the man in Utah who was being arrested and while the police were doing so, his four-year-old took the gun that was in the car and started shooting at the police? He said he did it, so his Dad could get away and do what he wanted to do.

Wake up, people, we don't need guns to protect us; they're killing machines not life protectors.

Different times indeed, however, some corrections to your interpretation of facts in necessary. It is very important to understand the Founding Fathers view of a standing army. At the time of our War For Independence, 1776-1783, there was a standing army in our country. It was the British Army. That standing army was the primary enforcement arm of the oppressive government that Americans faced at that time. That standing army is why we have the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Amendments. That standing army was first confronted with the militias and then the Continental Army. James Madison typifies our Founding Fathers in a speech he delivered in June of 1787 at the Constitutional Convention. He said, " A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to Liberty.".

In your post above, you stated that when the 2nd Amendment was passed there was no standing Army. That is not correct. The US Army was born June 14, 1775, the US Navy was born on October 13, 1775, the US Marines were born November 10, 1775. Congress created the US Military under the Constitution on September 29, 1787. The 2nd Amendment was passed on December 15, 1791. Four years later.

Fact: Over 54% of firearms deaths in our country are suicide. Someone committed to ending their life will use whatever means they have available. We don't even land in the top 10 countries in the world on suicide rate. 1. Guyana, 2. Japan, 3. South Korea, 4. Sri Lanka, 5. Lithuania, 6. Suriname, 7. Mozambique, 8. Tanzania, 9. Nepal, 10. Kazakhstan.

You try to paint us as a murdering country, however, the murder rate in our country is in the middle of the pack. Eighty-eight countries have a higher murder rate than we do. For example, El Salvador has a murder rate of 61.8 per 100,000 people while the U.S. is 5.3 per 100,000.

Anti-gun radicals conveniently leave out a very important fact. Every year armed Americans defend themselves 2,500,000 times against criminals. Wouldn't it be great if we consider banning criminals?

I am quite certain you have no idea what goes through the mind of our Law Enforcement Officers, but you do have quite an imagination.

The rest of your rant is bloviation. We could have a billion firearms in our country and that would not have an effect on the number nor frequency of mass shootings. The number of citizens in our country and the number of firearms are irrelevant. Bad people can't be legislated nor banned.

The fact is you have no understanding of the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, our history, nor our form of governance.