Comments by "" (@timogul) on "CBN News"
channel.
-
10
-
7
-
5
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jcpenny3606 But guns make things MUCH easier to carry out. I mean, you can run from a knife. Bombs are complicated, and a lot of wannabe bombers just end up blowing themselves up. I mean, in the countries where they don't have as many guns, it's not like they have way more bombings to make up for it, they just have less dead people, period.
Again, it's not like other countries have 1/4 the gun murders but 4x as many "other murders" than the US, they have exactly the same "other murders" as the US, just far less of the gun murders, so that the TOTAL amount killed is 1/4 as many.
And I mean, just as an example of the difference it makes, on the same day that the Sandy Hook shooter killed 27 people, a guy in China went on a knifing rampage in a crowded area, and he injured 27 people. Injured, there were ZERO deaths.
You can't prevent 100% of crimes or even murders, but you can massively reduce them, and isn't that worth doing?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dialechim4368 Maybe you could tell me why it would be terrible for the government to have exclusive legal use of force. That's one of the primary functions of a government, to employ force only as the society determines it should be used.
Some criminals could still obtain guns, but as we know from the examples of other first world countries, gun bans do work, if guns are illegal, it is much harder for criminals to obtain guns, FAR fewer criminals have them, and those guns that are used in crimes are much more often "criminal vs criminal," rather than the murder of innocents. I mean, in pretty much every mass shooting case, the shooter obtained their weapons legally, or got them off of someone who had, so if you removed that legal access to guns, the "casual criminals" would have a much harder time finding a black market source for them.
And people do sometimes shoot police stations and military bases, like the Fort Hood shooting, but the issue is that it's impossible to adequately protect EVERY location. We know for a fact that removing the guns would massively reduce the amount of shootings. There are some idiots out there who say that the solution to the problem is somehow "more guns," and yet the US already has way more guns than any other country, and yet also has four times as many murders, so clearly the evidence points to the opposite. If "more guns" were the answer, then the US would already have a murder rate that was less than half of any other first world country, rather than four times higher.
1
-
1
-
@JohnDoe-ew3xt 1. Yes, murders decreased dramatically since the passage of the 1994 assault weapons ban. They have been increasing dramatically ever since that law was allowed to lapse. Obviously, these are complex issues, and you can never 1:1 tie broad outcomes to any specific changes to the law, but the overall trend is that removing legal guns from the streets correlates to reduced murders, and allowing more guns correlates to increased murders. I mean, you have to squint REALLY hard to try and imagine a picture in which "more guns" turns out to be better than "less guns."
2. Ok, you do you. Personally, if someone is doing something right and it leads to better results, I think I'd have to be pretty damned ignorant to say "no thanks to that, I'm doing it my way instead!" Don't do something because another country is doing it, do it because it's the right damned thing to do.
3. Well like I said, "ideally." Changing the constitution is very difficult, and therefore unlikely, but I think we can agree that we would at least be better off for it. So short of that, we should do whatever we CAN do to reduce the guns on the streets, right?
And as to your final question, yes, at the time it was written the US had no standing national army, so in case of foreign invasion, the average citizen needed to be prepared to join up in national defense. That's why the 2nd amendment makes clear from the very start, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," It was never meant to apply outside that context, and largely became irrelevant once the US shifted toward a more professional army.
1
-
@JohnDoe-ew3xt Personally, I think 30 years for possessing a firearm is a bit much, but they should at least be able to confiscate it and have a penalty harsh enough that good people would not do it. A short prison sentence should be plenty, at least for a first offense.
And sure, in a perfect world without criminals, everyone could have guns and it would be fine, but it's easier to solve the gun problem than the people problem. I mean, all those other countries have just as many "bad people" at the US does, but those people can cause less HARM because they lack the tools to do so. Getting the hardware off the streets is something that can actually be DONE. Saying that "we should just prevent all criminals" is just an excuse to NOT do anything productive.
As to the Constitution, you do realize that the Bill of Rights WAS a "change to the Constitution," right? Changing the Constitution was an important part of the process. It's just become impractical to do these days because there are too many stupid people.
1
-
@JohnDoe-ew3xt Why do you say that I "like the criminals, but hate the hardware?" I'm in favor of reasonable penalties for committing a crime, but unreasonable penalties don't lead to a decrease in crime. The US already imprisons more people than any nation on Earth, if harsher prison times were the solution, then we would not have four times more murders than other first world countries.
The point is to get the guns off the streets, that is what would stop this violence. Most mass shooters never had a previous offense, so harsh penalties for gun possession would do nothing to take them off the streets.
And I answered your question about the 2nd amendment, it was created because at the time the US did not have a standing army, so they needed citizens to be prepare for national defense. This became redundant by the 20th Century, similar to the 3rd amendment.
And the reason the Bill of Rights was added was because they realized at the time that the base Constitution was not sufficient and needed additional elements. It has been added to and removed from many times over the years, but the rules were written at a time when there were only 13 states and far fewer people, and it's since become practically impossible to get any new changes made to it. The equal rights amendment was passed by congress in 1972, and yet is still not ratified because it fell a few states short of full ratification. There are just too many stupid people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1