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

[Linkedblade]

May I ask why it matter which one you went to? Unless the person in the armed home is sitting around on guard you can easily sneak in and shot him dead before he makes a peep. Wheres entering the home of someone unarmed you wouldn't need to kill anyone because nobody posed a threat to you.

Well what about Sandy Hook? If any of the adults there had been armed, do you think as many children would have been killed?

[Grizzly Willy]

A little bit of government always grows into a large government. A law saying you need to register a gun now will lead to a law saying you can no longer buy a gun.

Really need to provide something stronger than a slippery slope.

[Deleted]

My two pesos:

In Chile it's almost impossible to buy a gun for any purpose at all and it's entirely illegal to have it outside of your house. There might as well just be a ban on guns altogether since nobody here has them anyway.

That said, I have been robbed at gunpoint here, almost everybody else I know here has been robbed at gunpoint, I have personally witnessed 3 shootings, and it's not uncommon to hear gunshots going off at random times.

Now, that is living for 4 years in a country that has EXTREMELY tough gun laws.

Let's compare to that to the other 27 years that I lived in the USA, with its supposedly far too lax gun regulations: I was never robbed at gunpoint, I have only met a few people who ever have been, I have only ever witnessed one shooting, and very rarely hear guns being fired in residential areas.

So who has the gun problem here? The country with the rigid gun control laws, or the country with the right to bear arms?

I'd say your problem is a country with inefficient gun control laws.
I live in Belgium,we have tough gun control laws and I have never seen a gun that isn't owned by the police,nobody I know owns a gun or has been ''robbed at gunpoint'',your country failing at gun control is no argument.

[Niroshi]

I realize that the OP is likely trolling, or simply trying to make an argument. However, there are some arguments that should not be made because of how dumb they end up. Follow this to it's obvious conclusion, if you removed guns from around the President then what would the ultimate conclusion of that be? Yet ANOTHER President assassinated because of paranoia and fear, we would have yet another JFK and on top of that it would be the nation's first black President, stirring racial animosity.

How bone headed can a group of people honestly be? I get the argument, that banning guns doesn't work, but use a different argument, or rather than be snarky why not just SAY that? Why imply a wish for the President's death?

Also, if you would celebrate such an event you are precisely the kind of person that we should keep guns away from.

[Linkedblade]

I don't know whats more pathetic, this petition, or the fact that Americans want guns in primary schools, to protect the 5-10 years olds from the guns that they hand out like candy to batshit crazy nutcases.
GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE GUN CONTROL KILLS PEOPLE
'MURICA FUCK YEAH

And that goes further to show the hypocrisy of our government:
Our citizens can't have weapons! But the cartels that are bringing in the drugs and murdering our people CAN have them!

[Wells]

Well what about Sandy Hook? If any of the adults there had been armed, do you think as many children would have been killed?

I suppose idle speculation is easier than data driven argument.

[Deleted]

Well look at some highly populated palces with gun control laws. AUSTRALIA. Chicago, NYC.

There is plenty of causation. If you were an armed robber both willing to steal and murder where would you rather go? A well armed home? Or an unarmed small town business?

Yea.. I am having a shitload of trouble with armed robbers in my gun controled country.. Oh wait I dont /flex

[nnelson54]

to protect the 5-10 years olds from the guns that they hand out like candy to batshit crazy nutcases.

Someone has a very strange view of America.

[Linkedblade]

Really need to provide something stronger than a slippery slope.

History is a perfect example: Nazi Germany. They had numerous social programs including gun control. You're telling me that wasn't a power grab?

[hakujinbakasama]

Yea.. I am having a shitload of trouble with armed robbers in my gun controled country.. Oh wait I dont /flex

No but your women are having a huge problem with being raped by immigrants. I wonder if the women were better armed if they'd still be getting raped at a capita rating of nearly 3 times the rest of the Western world.

[Linkedblade]

I suppose idle speculation is easier than data driven argument.

You know why you don't know of any data of this? Because the story that goes "Man had a robber come up to him. Robber gets scared away. Man goes on living his life." Doesn't exactly draw a crowd or create a good as a story as "CRAZY MAN WITH GUN KILLS CHILDREN!!"

[zalmatra]

The threat of force is the only true law of the world,

its what keeps criminals out of your home.

if you choose to not learn means of self defense that is on you. if you choose to pretend that bad people will obey gun laws thats on you. if you think a gun law will stop criminals and gangs from getting guns well im sorry it wont.

no law will stop a crazy person from doing crazy things.

im sorry to break your glass bubble but a quick decision a split second decision is that which keeps you from being alive or dead.
choosing your life or the life of your attacker is what you have to decide whats important.

i choose my life i dont care who the attacker or aggressor is none lethal force will be attempted only so long as it does not impede my safety. i will always use lethal force when my life is threatens

[Wells]

History is a perfect example: Nazi Germany. They had numerous social programs including gun control. You're telling me that wasn't a power grab?

The Nazis didn't expand gun control until they were already in power. And they didn't even particularly need it to maintain power.

[Mezzolith]

Again the question is "why not?" Because bad people used them? Because something that is owned by a volume we can't even imagine was used by two assholes?

I don't get the rationalization. If we say that 500,000 people legally own an AR15 currently (which hell if I know if that is above or under) and out of those people 3 people in one year have used one illegally, that some how justifies the removal of them off the market?

Don't get me wrong. I'm against this for several reasons, but I've just not understood the connect. Hand guns kill more people in total every year. This means they are a greater problem. I believe part of the fight comes from this. They are targeting things which are used in an EXTREMELY low number of crimes. So if it passes, what is preventing everything that IS used in most other crimes.

The real fight comes from the lack of agreement on subject ideals as I and others have tried to express. Guns are equally for protection as they are for anything else. Used inappropriately they are extremely dangerous. Turns out, Alcohol isn't created for anything beneficial much like Tobacco. Both are substances which kill more people each year in the USA instead of guns. Both do not have uses of self protection. Bother are not protected under the Constitution, and yet I think more people would be against giving them up or doing away with them than guns. Does that make sense? It doesn't to me.

These guns are built for mass murder. They're built for war and conflict. Not shooting an attacker or an animal.

[AurizenDarkstar]

History is a perfect example: Nazi Germany. They had numerous social programs including gun control. You're telling me that wasn't a power grab?

Ah, the Godwinning of the thread begins. Now I suppose you will equate the 'liberal minded' people of the US with the psychopaths and authoritarians that made up the National Socialist Party, right? Because anyone who identifies as a liberal or is left leaning, is nothing more than a dyed in the wool killer and blatant racist in disguise, right?

[Wells]

You know why you don't know of any data of this? Because the story that goes "Man had a robber come up to him. Robber gets scared away. Man goes on living his life." Doesn't exactly draw a crowd or create a good as a story as "CRAZY MAN WITH GUN KILLS CHILDREN!!"

You've made some vague and ill-formed claims about gun control in other countries and their crime rate as well as internal rates in the US. You have yet to back up those claims with data.

[hakujinbakasama]

I realize that the OP is likely trolling, or simply trying to make an argument. However, there are some arguments that should not be made because of how dumb they end up. Follow this to it's obvious conclusion, if you removed guns from around the President then what would the ultimate conclusion of that be? Yet ANOTHER President assassinated because of paranoia and fear, we would have yet another JFK and on top of that it would be the nation's first black President, stirring racial animosity.

How bone headed can a group of people honestly be? I get the argument, that banning guns doesn't work, but use a different argument, or rather than be snarky why not just SAY that? Why imply a wish for the President's death?

Also, if you would celebrate such an event you are precisely the kind of person that we should keep guns away from.

Did someone actually do that in seriousness? I know the OP was making an illustration and analogy but I didn't think he was calling for the death of anyone.

---------- Post added 2012-12-27 at 08:46 PM ----------

These guns are built for mass murder. They're built for war and conflict. Not shooting an attacker or an animal.

That's a pretty tough thing to prove. Would you like to try at all or just make the statement and feel smug?

[zalmatra]

I am proficent with multiple gun types as well as knife usage.

manslaughter is preferable to a lengthy disability legal battle.
i have been attacked before and defended myself. i will always defend myself. if you dont want to defend yourself or your loved ones thats on you.

[Wells]

Jesus fucking christ no one is talking about taking away your right to defend yourself.

[Deleted]

No but your women are having a huge problem with being raped by immigrants. I wonder if the women were better armed if they'd still be getting raped at a capita rating of nearly 3 times the rest of the Western world.

No they would probably be raped and killed since every immigrant would have a gun too. Try to understand that this is 2012 not som fucking western movie with Clint Eastwood. Americas gunlaws are as ancient as african technology.