http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/op ... erica.html This marks first front page editorial for the NYT since 1920. Hopefully this will only serve to show the Times how much its influence has waned over the years. To advocate the gun confiscation from law-abiding American citizens is asinine and counter productive. This article was the climactical product of the San Bernardino terrorist attack. What are your thoughts on this issue and the reaction by the NYT?
Following the tragedy in California, it seems the left calls yet again for more and more gun control. From my view point, there is enough fun control in America already. Making yet more legislation is not the answer. Here is how America should deal with acts of terrorism 1. Understand that terrorists are already in America and that the occasional tragedy will happen no matter what you do. 2. Continue to live normal and productive lives. Don't over react. Not every tragedy needs new gun legislation (democrats) or a new arm of government like homeland security and massively expensive yet innefective airport security checks (republicans). 3. Live with situational awareness. Be aware of your surroundings, and have a plan in place for the unlikely event that crap hits the fan. This, I think, is the most effective solution. Both political parties need to stop the posturing.
If they take away guns there will be another civil war. There are over 20mil veterans and even more non veterans that have strong feelings about guns. Personally to protect my family and myself and to hunt/enjoy I will always have a gun regardless. People need to realize that a gun is a TOOL not a weapon and the person using it is at fault. They need to focus less on how to take away guns from law-abiding citizens and focus more on stoping criminals from committing acts of extreme violence. Taking away guns will not stop criminals from obtaining guns, they do not follow the law so what do you care if it's illegal or not, it only restricts those who actually follow the law.
Oddly (or predictably), that article does not advocate for the removal of all guns. It does call for commonsense restrictions on high caliber military style weapons, The kind that are primarily used to shoot up large numbers of citizens at once. So, as per the OP, please tell us all what you think of the completely made up, bogus, straw-man argument from the OP, which has nothing to do with the article from the NY Times.
A shooting happens with illegal guns, and the answer is to make it harder to get guns legally...yeah, no. This will just turn out like every other gun thread though. Republicans saying they want guns, and idiots from other countries trying to compare their gun laws to ours.
Sure, but can you not: 1) get rid of the really freakin big guns? If you want to enjoy shooting those, go to a range. 2) make it a hell of a lot harder to acquire a gun? Demonstrate mental stability, stricter permit procedures blah blah blah...all the crap that has been said hundreds of times. (Yes, i know there will always be a black market for gun. Every country is like this.) For anyone to not think SOMETHING must be done, makes you look like a total fool.
I never said this "It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation. Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens. What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?" Read the last three paragraphs. Specifically, "it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens"
Elaborate on this. For example, define "really freaking big guns" and explain how you would "get rid of them" at the same time as limiting them to only firing ranges.
Really? How much gun crime to we experience here compared to America? Ours is virtually nonexistent as a comparison
To be fair, this thread is not about that socialist island nation across the pond. This is not a "my country is the best" thread. This is about the NYT and the issue of gun confiscation mostly in the United States after the event of a terrorist attack (San Berdnardino). If you want to cite Britain to make a point that's fine, but don't make it about Britain.
When did I make it a 'my country is better' argument? I pointed out that our gun laws make for less gun crime. I have no intention of claiming that the uk is better than the US lmao
It was more the follow up comment, I'm all for saying what you want but I also would like to stay on topic. It wasn't really a problem yet, I could just see the seeds of various patriotisms beginning to sprout into a shouting match. You're fine.
At least the author admitted the truth when he said: What's funny is the self-contradiction. I have brought this up in previous threads - gun laws guarantee one thing: only criminals will be armed.
Yes, let's adopt your gun laws and our gun violence will magically go away. Ignore the fact that we already have hundreds of millions in circulation. Ignore the fact that we have been in a war the last 14 years and have basically created a terrorist group that wants to suicide bomb us to hell, and ignore the fact that this country has so much racial tension it's unreal. Yeah, just match our laws to yours and everything changes.