"Gun Free Zones" around the President! Sign the petition.

[Sicarus]

Cultural difference, in my country we are not used to cops shooting (if a policeman just draws his gun its a headline story). We don't like guns, there used to keep us safe by people who follow a few years of professional training. We don't need to keep ourselves safe, we pay taxes so our government can keep us safe.

And if we get in a fight for some reason, we fight the manly way, by using fists, the most damage this usually causes is a bloody nose or a black eye.
If we get mugged, its with a knife, muggers don't tend to kill people (because if that happens its big news and the killers rarely escape justice), just hand over your money and they'll be of.

Also the weaker (handicapped people, elderly people) rarely get mugged, the people who are the most at risk are young white males. Even petty thieves have morals, or some feeling of honor.

Burglars rarely carry a weapon, because the punishment if caught is severly harsher with a gun/knife than without. So in the majority of the cases, if you catch a burglar in your house, they will run away like rabits.

Yes this does mean that a few criminals with guns can go their merry way, but they rarely kill people, because they know they wont meet resistance from some douchie wannabehero with a concealed weapon.

I can't remember any story where the Concealed weapon holder acted like a "douchie wannabehero". That's glorification from stories and internet jokes.

And I don't want to give up my possessions to appease some jackass that won't further himself in his life on his own.

If he's ruined his life, that's his own fault.

That's my culture and view, I'd rather prefer I keep my freedoms, such as being able to keep my guns, I understand differing views, however it's seems to be that because I hold these views, I'm automatically a demon, as compared to how others expected to be treated when they want to take away my freedom.

[Didactic]

I am sure you know as much as I do, that we've compared the stats for whole of Europe more than often already in the other threads.
The description of his scenarios for Belgium match exactly with every other European country.

And no one who points that differences out, has ever claimed that there are zero gun related death in Europe...
But there's a huge difference between 1 casualty per capita and 12 casualties per capita.
The US is dead last amongst all the western countries in those stats.
Plus, read the 2 articles I posted........ One can hardly say the USA even has sufficient data, if it's illegal to even research it officially.
It's easy to claim that weapons have no impact on safety in a negative way, when gun lobby manages that the scientific research for it gets prohibited, by removing the funds needed to do the research.

Not asking to disarm the entire population.. Just asking to reason with the facts that are so obvious.
At some point, denying facts is pretty much the same as denying that the Earth is not a disc.
I am a very reasonable and rational person. I do life with facts. If someone shows me facts, I look into them, and then I make my own judgement and decision, and certainly would I never deny those facts.

There is a huge difference between 1 and 12, yes. There is also a huge difference between the US and any other western country you care to name. Several differences actually; legal, cultural, and socioeconomic.

The Earth is not a disc.

[Headfilter]

Who will regulate this? So basically you want to turn these "gun free zones" into police state sections, and futhermore just because its a "Gun free zone" isn't going to stop someone from walking into with a gun and opening fire...... YOU obviously dont know how they work.

Guess you do not seem to understand how a "gun free zone" works. If guns are not allowed, then the people in the "gun free zone" will be safe from assasins or crazy people.

[Grizzly Willy]

Who will regulate this? So basically you want to turn these "gun free zones" into police state sections, and futhermore just because its a "Gun free zone" isn't going to stop someone from walking into with a gun and opening fire...... YOU obviously dont know how they work.

That is the ultimate point, though, as dumb as this petition may be; that gun free zones don't prevent people from walking in with a gun.

[JfmC]

I wasn't aware that Belgium covered the entirety of the European continent.

Lets just say Belgium is a pretty standard Western-European country, only with better beer and a very good gastronomy (we invented the french fries, the french part of the name only refers to the way the potatoes are cut)

Except the difference is, you can be shot either way. Banning guns does not remove the possibility of being shot; for example, Australia's rate of gun violence is almost at pre-ban levels currently.

No it doesnt remove the possibility of being shot, in fact there was a random shooting spree in Luik last year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Li%C3%A8ge_attack
But it was an exception, this was the first shooting in a public place since WW2. Not having guns available freely does not remove the possibility of being shot. But it does makes the chance significantly smaller.

At least in the US, you have the option of being able to return fire.

And possible wound/kill random bystanders, because lets face it, you're not a 1 hit 1 kill man unless you are within 10 feet (even if you are good at the shooting range)

The liberty to bear arms carries restrictions, it is not unconscionable that adding such a law would be Constitutional.

I'm not going to comment on this, because I don't know the law in America, but I think the principle is reasonably similar to other western countries.

Please, having a gun does not 'make you safer', that is NRA propaganda. What it does is it creates options, and puts you at parity with or at advantage to an aggressor.

Indeed it does not make you safer, because when its a tradition to carry concealed weapons, criminals will be shooting faster at random people because of the possible threat of a concealed weapon. You aren't putting yourself on par with the 'badguys', you are making yourself a threat and therefor painting a big target on your head and on the heads of others around you.

---------- Post added 2012-12-29 at 12:09 AM ----------

That's my culture and view, I'd rather prefer I keep my freedoms, such as being able to keep my guns, I understand differing views, however it's seems to be that because I hold these views, I'm automatically a demon, as compared to how others expected to be treated when they want to take away my freedom.

You are not a demon, nobody thinks that. You do however act like the stereotype American by talking about freedom like that. You do realize that by saying this you indirectly imply that other country's are not free.

Being able to own weapons does not make you free. You never will be free, infact if you where completly free you would be an outcast to society, because (I'l keep repeating this) the more people you live together with, the more freedom you are giving up. Living in a huge thriving society like todays has its price.

Owning weapons should be a privilige, obtained after a couple of years of police/guard training where you learn to prevent the use of weapons(any weapon from knife to assault rifle). It shouldn't be a right.
But like you said different cultures ....

[Kangodo]

Hello friends.

We must protect the President, the Vice-President and their families. The only way to do so is to create "Gun Free Zones" around them.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...zones/6RDGkxLK

We no longer should need the Secret Service or other armed guards, once we create these "Gun Free Zones."

Help Protect Barack Hussein Obama by signing this pledge.

Aah yes, the President doesn't need armed protection because good citizens aren't using guns!
Do you want to see him dead or what? That's a stupid petition, really..

[Beavis]

Chicago and Houston have similar populations, Chicago having around 600,000 more, however, I can account personally for the number of shootings I've personally eye-witnessed.

Which is 0.

What's your point? I've lived in Los Angeles my entire life and I've never seen anybody shot either. That has nothing to do with gun control, that's just random happenstance.

The FBI keeps track of all crime stats and the South is the most violent place in the country. And by a relatively wide margin too. Sorry if reality doesn't comport with your world view.

[Uruhara]

Gotta add a few cents to this discussion.

I have my CCL and own several guns, at least one would fall into the category of an "Assault Rifle". That being said, I think there should be a national discussion on gun regulation. This doesn't mean we should ban any/all guns, but we should have an open and honest discussion about it, looking at facts and opinions from both sides. This is apparently not allowed in congress, and the public seems incapable...

We see it all the time here on the forums, but it's not any better up to the highest levels of government. Take this thread for example. Do you think the OP had ANY room for a dissenting opinion when he created this thread? We see the same thing all over. People want to talk, but no one wants to listen. People look for facts to support their opinion instead of looking for facts to INFORM their opinion.

On the internet (and in life) it is easy to hear someone express an opinion, and then lump them in with people who you have heard share that opinion. You start to argue past each other because instead of listening to their point, you are already forming your counter-argument. Usually this counter-argument isn't even directed at the person you are talking to, but some other person or thing you read about before.

I'd like to address a few specific statements from this thread:

Guns are designed for...
Guns are a tool, but they are a tool that is designed with a very limited purpose. That purpose is to injure or kill another living being. A tool that has this purpose has another name which is "Weapon". Now weapons are in fact tools, but I prefer to call a spade a spade. Are you in favor of limiting US citizens access to weapons?

Gun Free Zones:
The purpose of a gun free zone is to remove the ambiguity of a gun threat, not to prevent criminals entering with guns. No one thinks that putting up a sign will prevent a madman from breaking the law. Yet we still post speed limits. This way the average person knows what is expected of them, and someone traveling 120 has no excuse when caught. In the same vein, someone carrying a gun into a Gun Free Zone can be instantly identified as a threat, rather than having to wonder if they are just some child's uncle there to pick him up with an AR-15 for self protection / hunting. I'm not saying it works, but lets be clear on the intent rather than characterizing the other side as unable to comprehend basic logic. I will repeat one more time: NO ONE THINKS GUN FREE ZONES ARE MAGIC.

So much more... but I can't spend all of my time on the internet. These were just two that I see as comments that are made over and over again, that really don't carry water.

Aside from what you may conclude my opinions are on gun control from the above statements, here are some really well thought out points from someone who is against increasing gun control:
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

[Feardotwin]

Guess you do not seem to understand how a "gun free zone" works. If guns are not allowed, then the people in the "gun free zone" will be safe from assasins or crazy people.

This logic is flawed. You can still kill someone without a gun, need I remind you of prisons? And other "controlled" places.

A situation like making something out of objects for ill purpose use, projectile or not.

To say otherwise is foolish. the next process you will see is the 2nd amendment being "voided" and what then? when 1 is stricken. that just means the rest will follow sooner or later. I will say it again (the word foolish) to think that's not possible is also foolish.

The very essence of our country is based on a sacred document that millions have died for, what makes us so different from the rest of the world. I think the deaths should not be in vain when people think of now, rather then consequences or tomorrow. Think about that.

All of this nonsense goes back to the core. 'the right to bear arms"

[sulfuric]

This logic is flawed. You can still kill someone without a gun, need I remind you of prisons? And other "controlled" places.

A situation like making something out of objects for ill purpose use, projectile or not.

To say otherwise is foolish. the next process you will see is the 2nd amendment being "voided" and what then? when 1 is stricken. that just means the rest will follow sooner or later. I will say it again (the word foolish) to think that's not possible is also foolish.

The very essence of our country is based on a sacred document that millions have died for, what makes us so different from the rest of the world. I think the deaths should not be in vain when people think of now, rather then consequences or tomorrow. Think about that.

All of this nonsense goes back to the core. 'the right to bear arms"

I find it ironic that you remind us that people died to protect the constitution, in a discussion when the guns allowed by the Constitution are causing even more people to die.

[Sicarus]

I find it ironic that you remind us that people died to protect the constitution, in a discussion when the guns allowed by the Constitution are causing even more people to die.

:|
Yep, those same guns that helped stop Charles Whitman.

Oh but wait, they're vigilantes right?

[breadisfunny]

Guess you do not seem to understand how a "gun free zone" works. If guns are not allowed, then the people in the "gun free zone" will be safe from assasins or crazy people.

because that will totally stop the criminals.

[Darthcullen]

Im glad you value the president's life over your own or over any other citizen's life. He is just a man. A human life. The value of his life is no greater than the quadriplegic child's life that is sitting there trying to scratch his back. Again, you want an example of people kill people and not guns kill people? Look at the crime rate for firearms in switzerland. They have better firearm crime rates than England and France both of which have MUCH stricter gun laws. The problem is not guns. Its the people.

And since we have the worst people, we need more protection. How is this topic even being debated.

[PizzaSHARK]

What's your point? I've lived in Los Angeles my entire life and I've never seen anybody shot either. That has nothing to do with gun control, that's just random happenstance.

The FBI keeps track of all crime stats and the South is the most violent place in the country. And by a relatively wide margin too. Sorry if reality doesn't comport with your world view.

What do they define as the South? If you're including states that border Mexico, that's a no-brainer that they'd have more violence.

[obdigore]

What do they define as the South? If you're including states that border Mexico, that's a no-brainer that they'd have more violence.

I'm guessing everything south of the mason-dixon line? I mean, that is what I consider 'the south'.

[PizzaSHARK]

I'm guessing everything south of the mason-dixon line? I mean, that is what I consider 'the south'.

There's the south, southeast, southwest, mid south, etc. Lots of areas that could all be "south."

[araine]

Hello friends.

We must protect the President, the Vice-President and their families. The only way to do so is to create "Gun Free Zones" around them.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...zones/6RDGkxLK

We no longer should need the Secret Service or other armed guards, once we create these "Gun Free Zones."

Help Protect Barack Hussein Obama by signing this pledge.

It already is a gun free zone since we dont need the wackos on the far right with there home grown skills in sharpshooting to protect our elected leader.

[Trunksee]

Gotta add a few cents to this discussion.

I have my CCL and own several guns, at least one would fall into the category of an "Assault Rifle". That being said, I think there should be a national discussion on gun regulation. This doesn't mean we should ban any/all guns, but we should have an open and honest discussion about it, looking at facts and opinions from both sides. This is apparently not allowed in congress, and the public seems incapable...

We see it all the time here on the forums, but it's not any better up to the highest levels of government. Take this thread for example. Do you think the OP had ANY room for a dissenting opinion when he created this thread? We see the same thing all over. People want to talk, but no one wants to listen. People look for facts to support their opinion instead of looking for facts to INFORM their opinion.

On the internet (and in life) it is easy to hear someone express an opinion, and then lump them in with people who you have heard share that opinion. You start to argue past each other because instead of listening to their point, you are already forming your counter-argument. Usually this counter-argument isn't even directed at the person you are talking to, but some other person or thing you read about before.

I'd like to address a few specific statements from this thread:

Guns are designed for...
Guns are a tool, but they are a tool that is designed with a very limited purpose. That purpose is to injure or kill another living being. A tool that has this purpose has another name which is "Weapon". Now weapons are in fact tools, but I prefer to call a spade a spade. Are you in favor of limiting US citizens access to weapons?

Gun Free Zones:
The purpose of a gun free zone is to remove the ambiguity of a gun threat, not to prevent criminals entering with guns. No one thinks that putting up a sign will prevent a madman from breaking the law. Yet we still post speed limits. This way the average person knows what is expected of them, and someone traveling 120 has no excuse when caught. In the same vein, someone carrying a gun into a Gun Free Zone can be instantly identified as a threat, rather than having to wonder if they are just some child's uncle there to pick him up with an AR-15 for self protection / hunting. I'm not saying it works, but lets be clear on the intent rather than characterizing the other side as unable to comprehend basic logic. I will repeat one more time: NO ONE THINKS GUN FREE ZONES ARE MAGIC.

So much more... but I can't spend all of my time on the internet. These were just two that I see as comments that are made over and over again, that really don't carry water.

Aside from what you may conclude my opinions are on gun control from the above statements, here are some really well thought out points from someone who is against increasing gun control:
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

I think after all of this discussion ive come to the same realization. I dont feel any gun should be made illegal, but we need to regulate it a lot better. We need gun regulation not gun control. I have no issue if they said you need to pay to have a psych eval every year to keep your firearms. If they actually enforced and had harsher penalties for illegal firearms i would have no issue with that. I think its fear getting in the way of good discussions. When idiots come out and immediately say BAN your going to put people on the defensive. You dont want to initiate discussions with panic causing wording.

[Seranthor]

Why? Because people disagree with his opinions?

Fucking hell. Any time there's a major incident the crazies and the ignorant come out in force.

As I see it Mr Morgan is exercising his first amendment right to speak about the 2nd amendment; Perhaps the folks that submitted and signed said petition are exercising THEIR first amendment rights. While I think about it, if the exercise of someone's first amendment rights is not what Mr Morgan had or his supporters had in mind, then perhaps he should use better judgement in what he says and to whom.

in parting, exercising your right of free speech doesn't make someone a crazy or ignorant.

---------- Post added 2013-01-02 at 01:56 PM ----------

Um, I think you need to revisit the what the powers and responsibilities of the executive office are.



By that right, we should "deport" half of MSNBC, whatever that channel Nancy Grace is on, and almost all of Fox News. Toss in a few from CNN and some other stations as well.

What a foolish thing to say. The man's loud, obnoxious, arrogant and a bit of a dick. That makes him fit in quite well with the world's perception of Americans.

Unfortunately, those you are suggesting 'deporting' are probably US Born Citizens, and thus, couldn't be deported. Mr Morgan, on the other hand, as I understand is a subject of Her Majesty.

---------- Post added 2013-01-02 at 02:02 PM ----------

No, it's not. But the kind of shit behind the petition on it's supporters is a big deal. The kind of blind ignorance and utter contempt for those they don't agree with, while turning a blind eye to those they do agree with, is a big fucking issue in this country. Why do you think it's so hard for congress to agree on a damn thing? There used to be a thing called compromise, and that barely exists nowadays.

To reach compromise, it takes all the parties involved, and it requires all parties involved to grasp that they aren't going to get everything they want. Short answer, the Dems don't respect the GOP, the GOP doesn't respect the Dems, both are dug in, and both don't wanna budge. Personally, I find anyone that willfully, maliciously and without remorse attacks the other side as not worth of respect, consideration or to be compromised with. I give respect until the other person proves to me they no longer deserve it.

[ptwonline]

What do they define as the South? If you're including states that border Mexico, that's a no-brainer that they'd have more violence.

Why is that? Most violence related to Mexicans--shockingly--happens in Mexico.

I suspect crime rates in the South tend to be higher because of poverty, and warm weather. People don't go out as much and end up confronting each other (leading to violence) when it's freezing out.